Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Great Yarmouth, in the room of Sir Arthur Harbord, C.B.E., deceased—[Mr. Holdsworth.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway (Variation of Directors Qualification) Bill. Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA.

M. STOYADINOVITCH (CUSTODY).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the circumstances in which M. Stoyadinovitch has been handed over to British custody by the Yugoslav Government?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): On 15th March the former Yugoslav Government informed His Majesty's Government that they were going to expel M. Stoyadinovitch from Yugoslavia and that they hoped His Majesty's Government would admit him to some British territory and keep him there. His Majesty's Government intimated their readiness to comply with the wishes of the Yugoslav Government. M. Stoyadinovitch is now therefore in British hands and will be kept in detention in British territory.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any intention of transferring him to the Isle of Man?

SITUATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to developments in Yugoslavia and the Balkans generally?

Mr. Butler: Since my statement to the House last week the situation has been completely altered by the establishment without any internal disorder of a new Government in Yugoslavia. The House will probably have noticed with gratification General Simovitch's—the Yugoslav Prime Minister—Order of the Day, in which, after asking that false rumours shall be ignored, he states that his Government is pursuing a friendly policy towards all its neighbours. The Order of the Day calls upon citizens to be prepared to defend their homes, and says that the Yugoslav Army, Air Force and Navy are prepared to do their duty. His Majesty's Government are in full and friendly relations with the new Government.

Mr. Mander: Would it be true to say that the British Government have promised the Yugoslav Government every possible support in the event of an attack by another Power?

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Is it a fact that the German Minister at Belgrade and the Yugoslav Minister at Berlin have been withdrawn?

Mr. Butler: I have seen a Press report that the German Minister has left Belgrade, but whether he has been withdrawn or not, I cannot say.

SPAIN.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Spanish Government to induce them to abandon or mitigate the harsh measures of political reprisals still continuing against all participants in or sympathisers with the Republican cause in the civil war?

Mr. Butler: The Spanish Government are well aware of the interest taken by His Majesty's Government on humanitarian grounds in the fate of political prisoners.

Miss Rathbone: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that His Majesty's Government have some responsibility for the unfortunate position of these victims of political reprisals, since they arise out of the breaches of the Non-intervention Pact, and could not the Government use the means of pressure given them by the substantial financial facilities which they are affording to Spain to secure more merciful treatment?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to obtain merciful treatment, but the matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is a matter of opinion. As regards the last part of her question, it is the custom of the Government to make their sentiments known to other Governments on such questions, but not to seek to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

Miss Rathbone: Is it a matter of opinion as to whether the victory of General Franco was not mainly due to German and Italian bombing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Wedgwood: Cannot the Government frankly tell the Spanish Government that unless they treat our friends decently they will not get any food ships?

BRITISH ECONOMIC FACILITIES.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noted the speech of Senor Suner when opening the German Press Exhibition in Spain, to the effect that he has been personally responsible for the Press during the last three years and that if anybody wished to see proof of Nationalist Spain's support for Germany they would find it in the pages of the newspapers; and whether, in view of this and of similar expressions of complete sympathy with German aims, he is satisfied that the Spanish Government still merits the substantial economic assistance and facilities granted it by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part, it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government that the Spanish people should suffer from the blockade, provided that Spain does not become a channel of supply for the enemy.

Miss Rathbone: Do not the remarks of Senor Suner indicate that Germany, and not the Spanish people, is really profiting from the facilities we are giving to Spain?

Mr. Butler: I should have thought that was precluded by the last part of my reply.

Mr. Cocks: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which department of the Foreign Office continues to practise appeasement contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that kind of generalisation has any value, and certainly it does not bear any relation to the facts of the policy of the Government.

TANGIER.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the text of the provisional agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government on Tangier as a White Paper?

Mr. Butler: The substance of the agreement was given in the full statement which I made on 26th February. As the agreement was of an interim character, and as there is nothing substantial to add to the information already in the possession of the House, I do not think it is necessary to lay a White Paper.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not necessary that Members of this House should be acquainted with the actual text, and will a copy be placed in the Library?

Mr. Butler: As I have told the hon. Member and the House, all the substantial points of the agreement, with the exception of certain detailed definitions of British rights and so forth, were announced in the statement I made. Therefore, the House is in possession of all the material which I think it desires. As this is an interim agreement, I do not think it is necessary to go further than that.

Mr. Cocks: Did not the question last week show confusion in the interpretation of the agreement?

Mr. Butler: I do not think there was any confusion about the position of the Mendoub.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that, since then, German infiltration is taking place in Tangier and the British Government are doing nothing to stop it?

Mr. Butler: I have informed the House that the British Government have no right to dispute the establishment of Consular representatives of other Powers in the Tangier zone. I am afraid we can do nothing about it.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the Anglo-Turkish Alliance, he can make any statement on the declaration of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on its relations with Turkey?

Mr. Butler: The recent Turco-Soviet declaration contained the following passage: —
Should Turkey in fact be the object of aggression and be involved in war in defence of her territory, Turkey could then in accordance with the Turco-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact count upon the full understanding and neutrality of the Soviet Union.
The House will remember that under Protocol 2 of our Treaty of Mutual Assistance with Turkey, the obligations undertaken by Turkey cannot compel her to take action having as its effect, or involving as its consequence, her entry into armed conflict with the Soviet Union. Such a possibility would appear to be even further removed by the recent declaration of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this agreement can be regarded as facilitating possible future developments between ourselves and the U.S.S.R. over the Middle East?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the declaration by the Soviet Union in relation to Turkey regarded by the Government as eminently satisfactory?

Mar. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Price: May I have a reply to my supplementary question?

Mr. Butler: We have always hoped that such developments would draw closer our relations with the Soviet Government.

GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he intends taking to meet the wishes of the Mexican Government, as expressed in the recent official Mexican Government broadcast, intimating that the feeling towards the British had undergone a favourable change, and that they wanted a settlement of the difference between the two Governments?

Mr. Butler: While I have been unable to trace the broadcast referred to by the hon. Member, I think the Mexican Government are aware that His Majesty's Government are ready to examine any proposals which the Mexican Government may put forward for a settlement of outstanding differences.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the Shell Oil Company is the company that is standing in the way of the Government making a settlement?

Mr. Butler: The real difficulty is that so far we have not had terms put to us on which a settlement could be made.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not desirable in present circumstances that we should not wait for advances by other Governments, but make approaches to them?

Mr. Butler: This is a very complicated and difficult question, and does really depend upon the terms for a proper settlement being put forward. If they are put forward, I can assure the hon. Member that they will be considered.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Might not the United States Government act as an intermediary in this matter, to the advantage of the Mexican Government and ourselves?

Mr. Butler: All these matters have been under consideration. The United States have an interest in the matter, and so have we. I think it would be better if terms were put forward so that we could consider them. We are in touch with the United States Government.

Mr. Lipson: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are 96 Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will approach the Government of the United


States of America with a view to opening negotiations to take the Mexican Government's external debt out of the hands of the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico, in order to settle the matter in some fair manner directly between His Majesty's Government and the American Government on the one hand, and the Mexican Government on the other?

Mr. Butter: The International Committee of Bankers on Mexico is recognised by the Council of Foreign Bondholders and by His Majesty's Government as being, in the special circumstances of the case, the most appropriate body to protect the interests of holders of Mexican external indebtedness. The Committee has conducted prolonged negotiations with the Mexican Government and has concluded a number of agreements, which unfortunately are not now being implemented by the Mexican Government. It does not appear to His Majesty's Government, who attach great importance to a fair settlement of the Mexican external debt, and who keep the matter under constant review, that any useful purpose would be served by the course of action suggested by the hon. Member.

CHINA (JAPANESE TRADE CONTROL).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the tenancy and use of British properties in Hankow continue to be forcibly denied by the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. On the pretext of military necessity, British firms are being denied the use of certain of their properties both at Hankow and at other places along the Yangtze. Protests have been made, and the matter will continue to be pressed.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking in view of the repeated interference by the Japanese with British interests and British shipping along the Yangtze River?

Mr. Butler: The position on the Yangtze remains as stated to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) on 28th January. I am refer-

ring in my answer to my hon. Friend's next Question to the general position of British trade interests in China.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what evidence he has to indicate that the Japanese Government or the Japanese authorities in the occupied districts of China have attempted to keep their repeated promises to carry out the policy of the open door, and to refrain from discrimination against the trade of other Powers?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the issue of permits by the Japanese Army for the export of silk from Shanghai has been confined to Japanese exporters; that all but four of the larger foreign firms have been squeezed out of the trade; and what explanation the Japanese Government have to offer for this practical repudiation of Mr. Matsuoka's recent declaration that Japan closes the door nowhere and to no one?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have for some time been watching the trend of Japanese policy towards foreign interests in China and in particular the effect on British trade. I took a recent opportunity to draw the attention of the Japanese Ambassador to the present state of affairs, which His Majesty's Government find impossible to reconcile with past protestations of the Japanese Government about the maintenance of the open door.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is right to assume from this reply that the Japanese have now gone back on all their agreements regarding European interests?

Mr. Butler: On the one hand, we have the Japanese statements, and, on the other hand, the situation as it is developing. The Japanese statements say that their policy is unchanged, whereas the more we look at the situation the more unsatisfactory we see it to be. That is why we have taken this opportunity to draw this matter to the urgent attention of the Japanese Government.

Mr. Hannah: Are we working closely with America in this matter?

Mr. Butler: We always do that in everything.

ABYSSINIA

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government have no territorial claims to make against Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 4th February, His Majesty's Government have no territorial ambitions in Abyssinia.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of denying the persistent rumours that His Majesty's Government have plans under which certain territories are to be partitioned?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say more than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said a short time ago. I should have thought that would have been sufficient.

Captain McEwen: Have we received any invitation from the Negus to take over the administration of any part of Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: I think we had better just go on mopping it up first.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that any political officers now being appointed to take over centres of administration in Abyssinia are doing so with the consent and approval of the Emperor Haile Selassie?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

UNOCCUPIED FRANCE (POLITICAL PRISONERS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no attempt was made, when granting per mission for the two food-ships to go to Vichy, France, to couple it with the condition that Messieurs Blum and Reynaud and other friends of democracy should be released, and Breitscheid not handed over to the Germans?

Mr. Butler: Experience has shown that intervention of this kind is not, as a general rule, beneficial to the individuals concerned.

Mr. Wedgwood: Are we not living in new times, and is it not our first duty to

protect our friends in France when we have an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. Butler: Certainly. But in my experience, and, I think, that of the House, when steps of this sort are taken it does not always redound to the advantage of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting the American Government in connection with this matter?

Mr. Butler: I certainly have no objection to doing that.

Mr. Leach: Are not the Government now convinced that the sole beneficiary out of this transaction is Germany?

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

GRASS FOR CATTLE FOOD. AERODROMES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he proposes to take in order to have grass mown from aerodromes treated as cattle food; and whether his attention has been called to the Newton process of grass-drying?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): My advisers are fully aware of the possibilities of various methods of grass-drying, including the Newton process; but, as explained in the course of the Debate on Air Estimates at the Committee stage, technical and operational requirements preclude the use on any large scale of grass mown from aerodromes as cattle food.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that I am assured by practical operators of aerodromes that there is really no difficulty in the matter, will the Minister have the question looked into again, because valuable feeding-stuffs are being thrown away?

Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Minister of Agriculture in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, for aerodrome surface purposes we have to grow a particularly hard sort of grass which does not lend itself to drying. On the other hand. I shall be glad to look into any case of any particular aerodrome.

1Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it has now been decided by him to record by films actual operations of the Royal Air Force; and, if so, whether he will set up a special film unit of the Royal Air Force for this purpose?

Captain Balfour: As indicated in the course of the Debate on Air Estimates at the Report stage, the desirability of obtaining as complete a film record of the air war as operational and technical considerations permit is fully recognised, and arrangements to this end have been made. As regards the second part of the Question, the formation of a special R.A.F. film unit is not at present contemplated.

Mr. Granville: Can the Minister say whether the recent reports in the Press to the effect that the Royal Air Force were to take operational films in colour were issued with the authority of his Department, and, if so, is there any reason why that statement could not have been made in the Debate on the Air Estimates?

Captain Balfour: I have not seen the statement. Film cameras have been installed in certain Royal Air Force aircraft, and these cameras are on loan from various sources. It is proposed that these cameras should be operated by Royal Air Force personnel, who are fully qualified to handle them as well as to fulfil their Royal Air Force duties. I cannot say anything about colour films, but I should have thought it was extremely doubtful whether they could be used with much benefit during night-bombing raids.

Mr. Granville: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the operational activities of the Royal Air Force would be the finest propaganda in neutral countries?

HOMING PIGEONS.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for Air why it is that application should have been made to the United States of America for 3,000 homing pigeons for use during the war when the pigeon fanciers at home are told that there is not enough feeding-stuff in the country to maintain their own birds?

Captain Balfour: No application has been made to the United States for

homing pigeons for use during the war. A generous offer was made by pigeon fanciers in that country to provide 3,000 pigeons for the use of the Army Pigeon Service. After careful consideration it was decided not to import any pigeons into the United Kingdom but to accept a small number of young birds for use overseas.

Captain McEwen: Is there food in this country for these birds?

Captain Balfour: We are not importing any birds into this country. As I have already said, we have decided not to import any pigeons from the United States, but to accept a small number of young birds for use overseas.

Mr. T. Smith: Is it not a fact that there are plenty of young birds in this country which could be trained for this purpose?

Captain Balfour: I am glad to know that, but I presume that in the case of these young birds from the United States they are specially suitable for use in certain climates overseas.

BOMBING OF BERLIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that the "Daily Mail," of 20th March, invited its readers to send donations to the "Bomb Berlin Fund" of the Ministry; whether any such fund exists; and whether any steps have been taken against the newspaper for its suggestion that a special fund has been created having for its objective indiscriminate reprisal bombing of civilians?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): I have read the statement referred to by the hon. Member. It appeared as a footnote to a correspondent's letter suggesting the formation of a "Bomb Berlin Fund." There is no such fund as the "Bomb Berlin Fund." This Ministry is, however, ready to receive and is continuously receiving gifts for the purchase of war materials, including bombs, and I think that the House can rely on the R.A.F. duly to deliver any bombs so provided.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister in no way concerned about an important daily


paper publishing such a statement as that the Ministry has a "Bomb Berlin Fund"? Would it not be something which every Member would use against Germany if there was a "Bomb London Fund" or a "Bomb Glasgow Fund" in Germany? Why is the "Daily Mail" allowed to publish such a statement?

Colonel Llewellin: In fact there is no: "Bomb Berlin Fund," but I must say that it rather encourages people in this country, especially in London, to hear that Berlin has been bombed.

POST OFFICE.

MAIL SERVICE (MIDDLE EAST).

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the possibility of improving the mail services to the Forces serving in the Middle East?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sir. With the assistance of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for Air and the collaboration of the other Service Departments, I am introducing forthwith a special air mail postcard service to personnel of His Majesty's Forces serving in the Middle East, and an announcement with full details is being made in the Press and by the B.B.C. The charge for this service will be 3d., and the postcards will be carried all the way by air to the bases in the Middle East, where they will be delivered to the Army Postal Service. Ordinary air mail letters, because of the weight involved, and the limited aircraft capacity available, have to be carried over a large part of the way by sea and the new postcard service will therefore be much quicker as well as much cheaper than the ordinary air mail letter service. In the homeward direction, an air letter card service for which the charge is 3d. has recently been introduced by the Army Postal Service: this facility is available to the Forces in the Middle East except Egypt. I regret that, for reasons outside my control, this letter card service cannot at present be introduced from His Majesty's Forces stationed in Egypt. Other improvements in the postal communications by air to and from the Forces in the Middle East are impending, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement soon.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will this apply to the service of mails going and coming from India?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise.

Major Sir George Davies: Does this include the Royal Navy as well as the land Forces?

Mr. Morrison: All personnel of His Majesty's Forces.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (LOST PARCELS).

Sir William Davison: asked the Postmaster-General between what posting dates were letters or parcels addressed to prisoners of war lost at sea or otherwise known to have been destroyed?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not aware that any letters addressed to prisoners of war have been lost at sea or otherwise destroyed. As regards parcels, I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the parcels sent by or on behalf of the next of kin. Of these, no parcels sent by permit holders have been lost at sea or otherwise destroyed, but some 2,000 "personal" parcels have been lost at sea. It is impossible to say with accuracy when these were posted but about 1,000 of them were posted in October, 1940, and the other 1,000 in February, 1941. A number of parcels addressed not to individual prisoners of war but to the International Red Cross are known to have been destroyed or seriously damaged in recent air raids.

Sir W. Davison: In view of the anxiety of many people about getting these clothing parcels to prisoners of war, will it not be possible for some public announcement to be made in the Press when parcels are lost in the way described?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAMAGED HISTORIC BUILDINGS (RESTORATION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whether he will give an assurance that all fabrics of outstanding national importance, especially those of interest to American tourists, will, so far as is possible, be restored to preserve all features of particular value?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Steps are being taken, in co-operation with the Ministry of Home Security and local authorities, to ensure, as far as possible, that valuable features of buildings of historic interest that may be damaged are preserved and safeguarded with a view to eventual restoration where restoration is practicable and desirable.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government fully conscious of the vast importance of preserving historic buildings in connection with the tourist traffic, which, after the war, must be a large element of national recuperation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can ask that question after the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are taken to see that when interim payments are paid to contractors for works in process of completion, some proportion of the money is paid over to sub-contractors, who can thus be protected against too heavy financial Josses in the event of the bankruptcy of the major firms?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Under the terms of their works contracts the Admiralty are expressly relieved of any contractual or other liability to subcontractors. Steps are not, therefore, taken by the Admiralty in the circumstances described to see that some proportion of the payments to a main contractor is paid over to his sub-contractors.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that sub-contractors give considerable credit to major firms on the strength of the fact that they have Admiralty contracts, has not the Admiralty an obligation to see that the suggestion made in my Question is adopted, and is the hon. Member aware that local authorities frequently insert a clause to this effect in their contracts, and will he not give further consideration to the matter?

Sir V. Warrender: The system that we follow has been in operation for a great

number of years and is working quite satisfactorily and a change would entail a large amount of disorder in the Department and I am very l0th to do it. Only one such case has been brought to my notice.

Mr. Stokes: Would not the matter be met if the Admiralty took more care—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS (FIRE-BOMB FIGHTERS).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many fire-watchers were on duty at a certain naval establishment, of which he has been informed, and other Admiralty premises at that place on a certain date; and if the number was in accordance with the minimum standard recommended by the fire prevention executive?

Sir V. Warrender: In addition to the Royal Marine Police, Home Guards, and trailer pump crews, there were 49 fire-watchers on duty at the establishment in question. This is more than the minimum recommended by the Ministry of Home Security.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that the establishment in question, a very large one, was almost totally destroyed? Will he give some assurance that the same standard of vigilance, precaution, and sacrifice, is expected and exacted as in defending a unit of the Fleet?

Sir V. Warrender: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the preventive methods at this particular establishment were very strict and the damage cannot be attributed in any way at all to any weakness in the fire-watching organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (RUMANIAN JEWS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information to give regarding the granting of permission to 700 Jews to enter Palestine in view of the pogroms in Rumania; and whether he can give an assurance that the 700 certificates were not old ones issued before the pogroms?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): No, Sir. I


am not yet in a position to make any further statement. My reply of 19th March related only to persons who had received Palestine immigration certificates before Rumania was declared enemy-occupied territory.

Mr. Wedgwood: Why did my hon. Friend give me a misleading answer a fortnight ago? Was he himself misled by his own permanent officials?

Mr. Hall: I regret if I misled my right hon. Friend. It was not intentional.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (NATIVE RECRUITS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Africans of Nyasaland recruited for service with the Forces will be employed out of the territory, and on what duties; whether adequate arrangements are being made for their health and welfare, with dependants' allowances and provision for injury and death; and whether he will have regard to the social and other effects of this additional drain on the manhood of this Dependency?

Mr. George Hall: Africans of Nyasaland who volunteer for service in the East African Forces are recruited on the same terms as those from the other African Dependencies. They are employed on general military duties and are liable for service outside the Protectorate. Adequate arrangements exist for the health and welfare of all members of the African Colonial Forces, and provision has been made for the grant of death and disability awards. The rates of pay, etc., approved for the East African Forces are applicable to recruits from Nyasaland. As regards the last part of the Question, my hon. Friend will remember that in the reply to his Question of 14th August, 1940, it was stated that the question of the migration of labour is kept under constant review with particular regard to its effect on the social and economic welfare of the Protectorate. The same considerations are naturally being borne in mind in connection with recruitment for the East African Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies what

schemes under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act are covered by the proposed expenditure of £400,000 in the current year in the West Indies?

Mr. George Hall: The amount referred to is provided for the Colonial Empire generally. It is available to meet the cost during 1941 of a certain number of schemes which were approved last year and of others which may be approved in the current year. A list of the schemes which have already been approved in respect of the West Indies will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Other schemes in addition to those mentioned in the list are still under consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. Friend say whether only £400,000 is allocated for the whole Colonial Empire, and is the sum available for the West Indies less than £400,000?

Following is the list:

Leeward Islands:
£


Antigua
Road Construction and Development 
7,293


Antigua
Development of Fishing Industry
430


Virgin Islands 
Tick Eradication Campaign
2,153


Jamaica 
Expedition to Indo-China to investigate Banana Diseases
1,000


Trinidad 
Witchbroom Disease Investigation 
619


West Indies generally.

Grant to Comptroller of Development and Welfare to pro-vide minor
amenities
5,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

WAR WORKERS' FACILITIES.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the inhabitants of a township of which he has been informed are employed at a Royal ordnance factory; that accommodation is being sought for an increasing number of workpeople from outside; that the carrying of workpeople from and to the aforementioned factory is far from satisfactory; the train journey involving several changes is inconvenient and slow, causing loss to workers and employers through unpunctuality; and


whether, under these circumstances, he will investigate the need for a through-omnibus service and thus expedite the transport of the workpeople, many of whom are women?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I am sending my hon. Friend a report on this subject, from which he will see that the criticisms made of the transport arrangements are not justified.

Sir R. Young: Has my hon. Friend received any communication from the local authority?

Mr. Montague: No, Sir, but we have a communication from the Comptroller-General of Transportation to the Ministry of Supply. If my hon. Friend would like to see that before he gets my letter, I will let him see it after Questions.

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER.

Commander Bower: asked the Minister of Transport what are the functions of the Public Relations Officer in his Department; what is the salary attached to the office; and how this salary compares with that of officers holding similar offices in other Government Departments?

Mr. Montague: The function of the Public Relations Officer is to explain and interpret to the public the nature and necessity of the steps taken in the Department and by the organisations acting under my right hon. Friend's control or direction to secure the best use of transport for the war effort. In this way, the fullest measure of co-operation by all concerned is obtained. The salaries paid to Public Relations Officers throughout the Service vary considerably, as do, so I understand, the duties and responsibilities attaching to the office. The salary attached to the office in the Department is £1,700.

Commander Bower: Will my hon. Friend explain in what respects his relations with the public have so deteriorated as to necessitate the appointment of an officer in receipt of a salary so much in excess of that paid by other Departments to similar officers?

Mr. Montague: It is not true that it is in excess of the salary paid in any other

Department. With regard to a Public Relations Officer, the House will realise that transport is exceedingly important and publicity attached to the subject is important at the present moment.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to reducing road accidents, he has considered the desirability of requiring all pedestrians to use the traffic signs; and with what result?

Mr. Montague: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been carefully considered, but a serious objection to it is that at crossroads provided with traffic light signals pedestrians are not fully protected from turning traffic when the green light is showing towards them. At certain signal installations "Cross Now" signals are in operation, but these are feasible only where an interval free from all crossing vehicles can be guaranteed. This is often a difficult matter to arrange from a traffic point of view.

Mr. Adams: Would the Minister consider the desirability of operating this during the black-out at controlled crossing only?

Mr. Montague: The answer is that traffic light signals are not for the purpose of controlling pedestrian traffic. There are many difficulties involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (BOARD OF GOVERNORS).

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Information whether he has any statement to make regarding the, Board of Governors of the British Broad casting Corporation?

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Information whether he can now make a statement about the reconstitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation Board of Governors?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Information whether he can now make a statement concerning the new constitution of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Prime Minister has authorised me to say that the King has been


pleased to approve the reconstitution of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the numbers of which were reduced to two at the outbreak of war, as follows: The two serving members, Sir Allan Powell and Mr. C. H. G. Millis, have at the request of the Government consented to continue in office. The following have been invited and have consented to join the Board: The hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), Mr. J. J. Mallon, Mr. Arthur Mann and Lady Violet Bonham Carter.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of that very reassuring reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, within the reasonable restrictions of war, this enlightened Board of Governors will be allowed to exercise genuine freedom?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

LORD HALIFAX'S SPEECH.

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether it is his intention to broadcast to the peoples of Europe, and to convey by leaflet, the war aims as stated by Lord Halifax in his recent speech in America?

Mr. Cooper: The widest publicity possible has already been given by the usual means to Lord Halifax's speech.

Mr. Granville: While I hope the Government will take every opportunity of delivering bombs every time they can on Berlin and other parts of Germany, may I ask, in view of the fact that the news programmes are often jammed, that the people of Germany are given the true facts of recent British victories as well as the declaration of war aims by our Ambassador in Washington?

Mr. Cooper: I will do my best.

NAZI METHODS (OCCUPIED COUNTRIES).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking to give the British people particulars of the barbarous methods pursued by the Nazis in the contries they have temporarily occupied towards the peoples they are attempting to enslave?

Mr. Cooper: Particulars of these Nazi methods have been given full publicity in

the Press, by broadcasts, and at public meetings. They have also been dealt with at length in books and pamphlets. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make for further action, I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that the more these details are known to the public the more they will put an end to the nonsense which is talked about peace by negotiation?

Mr. Cooper: I hope so.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that the country house in France of the late French Ambassador in Berlin has been wantonly destroyed by the Germans?

Mr. Cooper: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SEWAGE SLUDGE (UTILISATION).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that large quantities of sewage sludge are being allowed to go to waste; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the maximum quantity is saved for manuring crops?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 19th February and 6th March, copies of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of those replies, whatever they were, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that practically nothing has been done about this matter in many parts of the country, and will he see that steps are taken and instructions given?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend will look at the replies, he will see that something is being done.

FOOD WASTE (PIG AND POULTRY FEEDING).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has studied the references in the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, to the effect that all opportunities for making


full use of waste products for pig and poultry feeding are not being taken, and that the matter demands investigation; and what action he is taking on the subject?

Mr. T. Williams: The views expressed in the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure have already been the subject of urgent consideration by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Supply, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. An investigation is now proceeding, with the assistance of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), with regard to the further steps that could be taken to ensure the collection, treatment and use of the largest possible quantities of food waste for feeding to pigs and poultry. As indicated, however, in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 13th March, the greater part of the available food waste is already being utilised, and the remainder still collectable is probably much less than is commonly supposed.

INTEREST RATES TO AGRICULTURAL BORROWERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a debate on the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to interest rates to agricultural borrowers?

[That this House notes with approval the recent action of the Government in lifting the ban, so enabling local authorities to proceed with conversion schemes covering approximately £30,000,000 of outstanding loans carrying over 4 percent. interest, when a repayment option is now exercisable; and is of opinion that this rational method of tackling a problem, a solution of which has been so long overdue, should be extended without further delay to the agricultural lending by the banks to borrowers who have been paying 5 percent, or more for this accommodation, as the House notes with concern that the total amount of advances to agriculturalists by the clearing banks which, from 1934 to February, 1940, remained at over £50,000,000, has since

that date decreased, which cannot be attributed to the fact that the need for credit is less, but is unquestionably due to the fact that, owing to the high interest charges, would-be borrowers dare not increase their indebtedness further to the banks.]

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I fear I can hold out no hope of special facilities being given for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not an unassailable fact that the real cause of the trouble is that the Government put first and foremost the interests of a dominating group and completely ignore the interest of securing the national larder by a reduction in the rate of bank loans from 5 to 3 percent.? Why is it that they allow this dominating group to go on without bringing about a reduction of interest, which would assist production for the national larder?

Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the highest and the lowest interest rates at present charged by the banks upon agricultural loans?

Mr. Attlee: I must have notice of that question.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman should not have supplied himself with that information before answering this Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the number who have joined the forces from Northern Ireland is in proportion to the numbers who are in the forces in this country according to the relative populations?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I regret that the required information is not available.

Mr. Tinker: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to whether Northern Ireland are giving their quota as promised when the Constitution was passed, because a number of Irishmen from Northern Ireland who are coming to this country are of military age and it is causing a lot of feeling?

CAMPS (WASTE PREVENTION.)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the appointment of one major-general to visit the camps of the country to cut out waste is regarded as adequate, in view of the number of camps; and whether he is appointing his own visiting staff?

Mr. Law: The Controller-General of Economy has a staff which carries out investigations under his direction and is regarded as adequate for this purpose. In this connection my hon. Friend will appreciate that, while the Controller-General has power to enter any Army establishment or unit in the course if his duties, commanding officers will remain responsible for the prevention of waste within their units.

Sir Irving Albery: What number of officers are doing this work?

Mr. Law: The Controller-General has under him an A.Q.M.G., a D.Q.M.G. and a staff captain, and a number of other officers will be added shortly. He will not be handicapped by lack of staff.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not have practical men to deal with this matter?

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it not a fact that so great is the improvement in preventing waste in camps that the contractors for swill are now complaining?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the transfer of 500 British officer prisoners of war from camp Oflag VIIc. in Bavaria to an internment camp in Poland; what was the cause of the transfer; and whether there has been any deterioration in the treatment of such prisoners?

Mr. Law: I am informed that a number of British officer prisoners of war have been transferred to camps possessing inferior amenities on the ground that conditions in an officers' prisoners of war camp in Canada do not conform to the requirements of the Prisoners of War Convention. Inquiries have shown that the allegations regarding the Canadian camp are completely unfounded, and the camp has in fact been favourably reported on by a delegate of the Inter-

national Red Cross. The Protecting Power has been asked to furnish a report on the conditions in the camps to which the British officers have been moved, and strong representations have been made to the German Government which I hope will result in the return of the officers to their original camps.

Sir W. Davison: Can my hon. Friend say whether the statement in my Question that 500 officers have been sent to Poland is correct; and will he say what arrangements have been made for sending letters and parcels to those who have been sent there, and whether the winter comforts, to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday as going to camps in Germany, will also be despatched to those sent to Poland?

Mr. Law: The number of officers is rather more than the figure given by my hon. Friend—I think it is about 700. With regard to the despatch of parcels, if these officers stay in the camp I have no doubt that parcels will reach them, as they reach other prisoner of war camps, but I hope very much that they will return to their original camp in a short time.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is there any truth in the statement that these officers are being interned in a camp built and erected for the purpose of privates?

Mr. Law: Yes, I think that is the case.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not a fact that the British Red Cross are in possession of the list of officers and other ranks transferred to this camp, which is Stalag 21B Posen, and is there any reason why that list could not be published, as relatives want to know where to address letters?

Mr. Law: I will have that looked into.

Captain McEwen: Have the conditions of which the Germans have complained in the Canadian camp anything to do with the escape of prisoners from that camp?

Mr. Law: There is nothing whatever wrong about conditions in the prisoners' camp in Canada. They are fully up to the standard demanded by the Prisoners of War Convention.

Captain McEwen: But has it not something to do with the escape of German officers?

Mr. Law: If my hon. and gallant Friend means, has this action been taken by the German Government by way of reprisal, I cannot say. If it has been taken, it is illegal under the Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Granville: asked the; Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a Ministry of Films for the purpose of assisting the industry to organise itself upon a sound basis and to enable this vital field of propaganda to play its full part in total war?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Mr. Granville: In view of the technical difficulties of film production in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the interests of highly skilled trained technicians, of whom there are very few in this country, and whom it has taken many years to train, are not completely lost sight of?

Mr. Attlee: The whole position of the film industry in this country is under consideration, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement which is to be made on the subject by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Charles Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think there is need for more Ministries at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITIA CAMPS (INQUIRY).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the name of the judge of the High Court who is to investigate cases of waste, extravagance and dishonesty arising from the findings of the Select Committee on National Expenditure; when will he commence his work; and to what address can further evidence be sent; to whom will the judge report; and will his report be made available to Members?

Mr. Attlee: Mr. Justice Simonds has undertaken to examine the papers in connection with the charges of a serious character made to the Select Committee against contractors, surveyors and others in official positions in connection with the militia camps to see whether there is a prima facie case against any officer or person which would justify further

action. He will begin his work forthwith. Until he has made some progress in the consideration of the papers, it will not be possible to say whether he will require any further evidence on the specific allegations he is examining, but if he does, the appropriate steps will be taken to obtain it. His report will be rendered to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Until the Prime Minister has the report in front of him, it will be premature to say what action will be appropriate.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the Select Committee said that the terms of reference prevented them from going fully into all these details, and as there is a mass of evidence which was not before the Select Committee and which ought to go before the judge, why limit the scope of the judge's inquiry; and why this delay and why this apparent willingness to hush up the whole matter? Can we have an answer to that question?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (COMMITTEES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of the small success that has attended the various committees of experts, such as gold, export, business and building experts, who have been chosen on panels to consider the work for reconstruction and other similar schemes, he will now strengthen these committees by the inclusion of practical persons who would be more representative of the views of the ordinary citizens of this country?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Grenwood): I do not accept the criticism of my hon. Friend. Many committees are now at work under various Departments, whilst discussions are proceeding with representative people on an informal basis. I shall always be glad to consider proposals made by practical persons.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the gold experts proved their ignorance while the export experts have proved no better? Why not employ some practical men on these consultative committees instead of the same old laissez faire people?

Mr. Greenwood: It is only practical men who can claim to be experts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

RACING PIGEONS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that the racing pigeon is in some cases the sole source of the working man's recreation, every endeavour will be made to ensure that the racing pigeon shall not be exterminated by permitting a reasonable percentage to receive the necessary ration; and, in particular consider men in the forces, Home Guard, fire services and on munitions, who, owing to their duties, are unable to join the National Pigeon Service, and thus render their birds liable to be destroyed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 4th March to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander).

Mr. De la Bère: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend have a heart? Does he not see that the amount of grain involved is only negligible and that some of these poor people would derive great benefit from having their birds preserved?

Sir John Mellor: Is the hon. and gallant Member satisfied that racing pigeons are getting a fair deal as compared with other racing animals?

Major Lloyd George: There has been a very heavy reduction in the number of horses in training, for instance, and while I agree that the reduction in pigeons is heavy, it is not so very much heavier.

Mr. De la Bère: Have a heart.

FISH FRIERS.

Sir R. Young: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the great hardship imposed on the supplies of fried fish by the inequitable distribution of compound as a cooking fat; that some businesses only receive one-seventh of their previous weekly amounts; by what arrangement the amount of compound is supplied to each fried fish shop; and whether that arrangement is such that all sellers of this valuable food get the same percentage amount of their pre-war orders of cooking fats?

Major Lloyd George: Oils and fats are rationed to all trade users on the basis of their pre-war usage. The basic allocation to fish friers is 75 percent of that usage but a special concession was made to them during last summer when for 16 weeks their allocation was raised to 100 percent. on condition that for a corresponding period during the winter the allocation would be reduced to 50 percent. This latter period ends on 6th April. After that date the allocation will be restored to 75 percent. An adjustment of the allocation is made to meet movement of the population, a somewhat higher percentage than the basic allocation being granted to fish friers in reception areas. No reduction has, however, been made in the evacuation areas while the basic allocation has been 50 percent. The adjustment is based upon the latest available population figures. No fish frier should therefore be receiving only one-seventh of his datum period usage. If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any such cases I will have them investigated.

Sir R. Young: Is the hon. and gallant Member quite certain that fish friers are not reduced to one-seventh of their normal supplies?

Major Lloyd George: I am certain they are not reduced to one-seventh. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind, I shall be grateful if he will let me have the particulars.

FRUIT PRESERVATION.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the productive capacity of the jam and canning plants in this country is capable of handling the estimated home grown fruit crop?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to what extent it is his intention to use women's organisations to manufacture jam from fruit next season; whether he will state which women's organisations he proposes to use for this purpose; and how the jam-making equipment and labour is to be provided?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend is inviting the co-operation of all women's


organisations which he has reason to believe may be in a position to help in the organising of co-operative fruit preserving centres. As the list is a long one, I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend, together with a copy of the relative instructions which have been sent out by my Department to Divisional Food Officers. All the work will be done by unpaid and voluntary workers as a form of national service.

Mr. Barnes: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is assured of the co-operation of these women's organisations; and if the productive capacity of the existing industry is sufficient, why create all this unnecessary organisation?

Major Lloyd George: I could not say whether I am assured of all co-operation. All I can say is that they are all being asked to co-operate. With regard to the question why it is necessary to set up this organisation, when we have sufficient capacity at the moment, the hon. Member will realise that in certain country districts it will save, as it did last' year, a considerable amount of the fruit crop if we allow people to preserve their smaller quantities of fruit on the spot rather than that we should attempt to go through the whole business of collecting these small quantities of a perishable commodity and sending them to manufacturing centres.

Mr. Burke: Will the hon. and gallant Member publish the list of organisations?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Sir G. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of women who are not members of an organisation who have in their own gardens varying quantities of soft fruit which they would like to preserve, and which will be lost and wasted if they cannot get access to the sugar necessary for preserving it? Has he in mind any plan to prevent wastage of that fruit which will occur unless some form of collection, or other facilities for these individuals, can be evolved by his Department?

Major Lloyd George: There is no need for any person to be attached to any organisation in order to take full advantage of this scheme. The difficulty about

issuing sugar to individual persons is that one must have an eye to the supply situation, and it was our experience last year that far more sugar went out than went into jam.

Mr. Donald Scott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps he intends taking to meet the growing opposition to the Co-operative Fruit preservation Scheme for 1941 by domestic fruit producers?

Major Lloyd George: I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting certain misconceptions which have contributed to the criticism of this scheme. In the first place, I should make it clear that every preserving centre will be open to all members of the public on equal terms, whether they are members of any voluntary organisation or not. Secondly, control of the issue of sugar to preserving centres will be in the hands of food control committees and not of any voluntary organisation. Thirdly, I can assure my hon. Friend that had the sugar supply position permitted, it was my Noble Friend's intention to increase the sugar ration from the middle of May to provide for domestic fruit preservation. It is solely on the grounds of the sugar supply position that it has been decided not to do so. The primary reason for some such scheme as that which has been worked out is the necessity to prevent the waste of garden fruit which cannot be sold in the shops or to jam manufacturers. My Noble Friend is satisfied that this purpose can only be achieved by officially authorised fruit preservation centres open to inspection by officers of the Departments concerned, and under an obligation to account for the use of all sugar issued to them.

Mr. Scott: Is the Minister aware that in remote country districts the scheme will be almost unworkable and that in those districts it will be a question of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day?

Major Lloyd George: I do not quite know what that means. An object of the scheme is to help to provide for the needs of those areas. If the areas to which my hon. Friend refers are very remote, there is nothing to prevent groups getting together and co-operating.

Mr. Garro Jones: What is to happen to the jam produced? Are the fortunate


possessors of soft fruits to have all the jam that is produced from them?

Major Lloyd George: The actual amount to be received by them this year has not been decided. It will have to have some relation to the situation that exists. Last year the limit adopted was 12 lb. per child's ration book and 10 lb. per adult's ration book.

LIVESTOCK (FEEDING-STUFFS).

Captain Sir I an Fraser: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food upon what principles, with a view to the fairest distribution of the largest possible amount, are food and feeding-stuffs allowed to be given to animals and birds in the categories of animals that provide food for human consumption, working animals and animals for sport or domestic pets, respectively?

Major Lloyd George: Feeding-stuffs are being allocated to livestock on the principle of the best distribution in the national interest. Livestock that provide food for human consumption are placed in the following order of importance, namely (1) dairy cattle; (2) fattening cattle and sheep; (3) pigs and poultry. Feeding-stuffs are allocated on this basis, the primary concern being to maintain the milk supply; account will be taken of the fact that cattle and sheep are fed largely on grass in the summer. Working animals are provided with the ration necessary for efficient work; this applies to working horses, pigeons in the National Pigeon Service and cage birds used for safety work. The quantity of feeding-stuffs for livestock kept for sport or recreation has either been drastically reduced or cut off altogether. In the case of racehorses, a sufficient quantity of feeding-stuffs is released for the number of racehorses in training, which is related to the restricted racing programme determined by the Government. Other pleasure horses will receive no rationed feeding-stuffs during the summer months and will have to be kept on a maintenance basis. Fox hounds, beagles and harriers are receiving, from 1st April, rations for one-sixth of the pre-war numbers. The manufacture of dog biscuits has been reduced to one-third of the pre-war quantity. No feeding-stuffs are being made available for cage birds or for pigeons outside the National Pigeon Service.

Sir I. Albery: Is the Minister aware that rationing schemes for feeding-stuffs do not include the proper distribution of feeding-stuffs?

MILK DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what action he proposes to take on the Perry report on the Distribution of Milk?

Major Lloyd George: Owing to the altered conditions obtaining since the date of the report of the Committee over which Lord Perry presided. His Majesty's Government have decided that it is not possible for them to adopt the recommendations made.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister satisfied with the cost of the distribution of milk?

Major Lloyd George: No, I cannot say that, but the principal recommendation of the Perry Committee was in reference to that matter. My hon. Friend will appreciate that since that time very great difficulties have been encountered by the distributors of milk. They have overcome them with very great skill, but those conditions did not obtain when the report was made.

FOOD VEHICLES (SPARE PARTS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Watford Co-operative Society is unable to obtain spare parts for essential food vehicles; that seven vehicles are standing idle, and the milk service to schools may have to be discontinued; and whether he will take steps to secure priority in the supply of spare parts for food vehicles?

Major Lloyd George: I understand that all the vehicles of the Watford Co-operative Society at the ration strength are drawing their petrol rations, and I assume therefore, that none of them are immobilised through inability to obtain spare parts. If, however, these vehicles should be in need of spare parts, every endeavour will be made to obtain them through the Ministry of Transport, in accordance with the new arrangements made with that Department.

MEAT ALLOCATION.

MR. R. J. Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to


the fact that the allocation of meat to the Bedlingtonshire Meat Traders' Association Pool has, with the exception of one week. been short of the advertised ration of is. 2d. since Christmas: and whether this is to be rectified?

Major Lloyd George: I have examined the allocations of meat to the Bedlingtonshire Urban District Retailers' Buying Committee during each of the past eight weeks, and I cannot accept the statement by my hon. Friend as accurate. During two weeks in February and one week in March issues were below the authorised allocation owing to difficulties of transport resulting from the severe weather, but in each of the succeeding weeks an extra quantity was issued. For the eight weeks ending 22nd March the value of the meat actually issued was £8,264 against an authorised issue of £7,958.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not remarkable that in the whole of the area the complaint is general that the ration has not been received, with the exception of one week? Will the hon. Gentleman see whether the emergency ration was included or excluded in these figures?

Major Lloyd George: I certainly will, but I would repeat again the information which I have given in my reply.

GOOD FRIDAY BUNS.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the question of Good Friday buns; and whether he can make a statement?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has placed no prohibition upon the manufacture of this class of confectionery, and sees no reason to make a statement.

Mr. Messer: Will there be any currants in them this year?

Mr. Banfield: Has the Minister's right hon. Friend received letters from various bakers' associations asking that these buns should be prohibited this year? Will he take any action in regard to the buns? Does he realise that the amount of fat and sugar that are used in the manufacture of these things is a bit of a scandal, especially when they are of no use?

Major Lloyd George: It is, of course, open to bakers to make hot cross buns, or not, as they wish.

Mr. Banfield: Has the Minister any intention of giving them more fat?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

SHEEP GRADING, KILMARNOCK.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that sheep graded at Kilmarnock, on 24th March, averaged 32 lb., and that if they had been allowed to graze till June would have made 50 lb.; and, in view of the adverse comments made by Ayrshire agricultural experts regarding this waste of potential food, what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence?

Major Lloyd George: The average weight of the 159 sheep graded at Kilmarnock on 24th March, as estimated by the certifying authority, was 44 lb., not 32 lb. There was one lot of 22 small crossbred animals estimated at 32 lb. per head. I am informed that it is most unlikely that these animals could have grown to 50 lb. by June, but in any case, in view of the necessity for the reduction in the number of livestock, it is not the policy of the Ministry to refuse acceptance at present of any animals offered to it other than pregnant cattle and sheep.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable powers conferred by Section two of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, to be exercised wife respect to certain bodies incorporated by Royal Charter." [Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the Prime Minister will be able to make his statement on the war situation and to move the Resolution of congratulation to the Navy, Army and Air Force, on the day before the Easter Adjournment, so as to leave the Adjournment day free, according to Parliamentary practice, for private Members to raise matters in which they are interested?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had notice of this Question, and he authorises me to say that


he will make his statement and propose the Resolution on the day before the Adjournment for the Easter Recess, as he understands this arrangement will be more convenient to the House generally. With regard to the Business for to-day, the House will be aware that it is important for the National Service Bill, the Isle of Man (Detention) Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill to be passed before the Adjournment. We hoped that it would be possible to dispose of these Bills yesterday, but it was very obvious that the programme was overloaded. We are suspending the Standing Order to-day, in order to conclude the Committee stage and obtain the remaining stages of the National Service Bill and to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Detention) Bill. We venture to hope that the Debate on the Motion to move Mr. Deputy-Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Estimates will be concluded at a reasonable hour, in order that there may be time to dispose of these two Bills without sitting late. We shall take the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill on the next Sitting Day.

Mr. Granville: Will the Prime Minister's statement be made in-Public Session?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, in Public Session.?

Sir W. Davison: We are all looking forward to the opportunity of expressing our thanks to the Navy, Army and Air Force; but may I ask whether, when we have a great naval victory in future such as we had on Thursday last, the flags on Government offices may be flown in this country as is done on such occasions in every other country in the world, so that people may realise that we are thankful for what the Forces have done?

Mr. Attlee: I will bring the matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Ronw Moelwyn Hughes, Esquire, for the County of Carmarthen (Carmarthen Division).

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Perry to attend to be examined as a witness before the Co-ordinating Sub-Committee appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir John Wardlaw-Milne.]

Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1941.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER.

Mr. Simmonds: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That"to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House urges upon His Majesty's Government an effective and courageous use of the powers granted by Parliament so that all His Majesty's subjects of all classes who are not engaged in the armed forces or in duties essential to the life of the nation shall, in such manner as the Government may direct, use their industrial energies in the total war effort.
The last occasion on which the fortune of the Ballot gave me the opportunity of introducing a Debate was some four years ago, when I raised the question of the inadequacy of our air defences, and I recollect particularly how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came down to the House and supported me with his usual weighty words on that day. I have since read that that Debate

marked a turning-point in the attitude of the Government of that day towards the strength of the Royal Air Force. If that be true, it was not a day too soon, and I respectfully submit that the question of industrial man-power is, to-day, as urgent and as serious as was the question of air power four years ago. How profoundly relieved we would all be if the Debate to-day should also prove a turning-point in Ministerial policy.
The principle of admonition by one's peers has been proved throughout the ages to be a sound one. It seems to me that, in these days of national unity and of an all-party Government, it would be a distinct advantage when we are discussing subjects, into the consideration of which the politics of the past or the problems of the present tend to introduce cross-currents, if the criticism of any Minister came primarily from the Members of his own party. That would, indeed, relieve Members of other parties of a responsibility which, in these days, cannot fail to disturb one's conscience. The issue must always arise in present circumstances "In the name of national safety should one speak? In the name of national unity should one be silent?" The consideration of all this complex of industrial man-power — in which term I include of course woman-power — suffers somewhat from party perplexities. The issue however is causing such widespread uneasiness, not only in the House but throughout the country, that, in spite of all qualms, I must raise it again to-day. For my part, I shall forget that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is a Socialist and trade unionist, and I am sure that he on his part, or anybody who may speak for him, will forget that I am a Unionist and an employer. Those matters do not enter into to-day's considerations.
Before proceeding to examine the current situation in the war industries, I would recall for a few minutes the earlier history of this question. On 22nd May, 1940, only a few days after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to office, the Lord Privy Seal asked the House to pass through all stages the Emergency Powers Defence Act, 1940. This is what my right hon. Friend said:
It is necessary that the Government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular


class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workmen, man or woman, and all property. …. The Minister of Labour will be given power to direct any person to perform any services required. …. It does not only apply to workmen, it applies to everybody."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1940; cols. 152 and 155, Vol. 361.]
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal moved the Second Reading of that Measure at 3.36 p.m., and by 6 p.m. on the same day the House had learned of the Royal Assent. Hon. Members who had prayed perseveringly for more action and more action to be taken quickly, were in a state of exaltation. The "phoney" lassitude of the "phoney" war was to be ended by a Minister of Labour armed with more powers, if not with more offices than Pooh-Bah himself. What would he not do to fill the war factories with men and women, day and night, Monday and Sunday, leaving no bench empty, no machine idle? That was the promise but I would recall that
Promises may get friends, but 'tis performance keeps them.
Those vast and formidable powers— how have they been wielded? Could any hon. Member, suffering from class-consciousness, claim that the Government have been reluctant to use them against property and wealth, to make those play their part? "All property," said my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and, indeed, we have since seen wholesale requisitioning. Homes, factories, offices, hotels have been requisitioned without reference to goodwill or value, which in many cases has meant virtual expropriation. The roots of years have been severed in a few hours all too frequently never to be restored. Never indeed shall we know the casualty lists of those elderly folk for whom the stress and strain of losing their homes without compensation and without payment of any kind have proved too much. "All property" said my right hon. Friend, and indeed we have seen great corporations scheduled as controlled establishments industry required to make substantial disbursements—investments in dispersal factories for example—and a hundred-and-one other provisions essential for the war effort. We have seen machinery and similar assets working night and day and tearing themselves to pieces, without any proper recompense because the Excess Profits

Tax of 100 per cent. has forbidden that. Then we have the Orders of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in connection with the concentration of industry. There we have a somewhat rough-and-ready form of justice. The Government have, in fact, conscripted the wealth of industry without, in many cases, any appropriate reward. It would thus be the wildest nonsense for any hon. Member to pretend that the Government have shown any tenderness for wealth or property.
Now let me come to the second part of my right hon. Friend's promise. "All persons," he said, and I would like to examine this part of the promise from two standpoints: first, as regards those who are not in industry but who ought to be, and, secondly, as regards those who are in industry but are not pulling their full weight. With regard to the first, it is notorious that the war industries are short of men and women, not only of skilled workers but, strange to say, of unskilled workers also. As far as skilled men and women are concerned, I believe the Government are at last making a consistent and determined attempt, many months overdue, to bring them into the war industries. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing what he is able℄what many hon. Members feel is more than he ought—to bring men and women of skill into the war industries, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is following this week with the registration of men from 41 to 43 years of age outside certain industries. I trust he will hurry with other age groups. With regard to this matter, the assumption appears to be that all, or nearly all, who are in these excepted industries and will not need to register, are properly occupied. This is notoriously not so. Many engineers, for example, are still engaged in maintenance and repair work, much of it immediate and essential, but some of it most definitely not. How soon will the net bring these men into more important work?
Equally urgent is a quick and large influx of unskilled men and women into the war industries. I stated in January —and I have seen my estimate widely quoted without any dissent—that the number of workers on the night shifts in the war industries was only 15 or 20 per cent. of what it should be. Hundreds


of thousands of machines doing important work during the day are idle at night for lack, mainly, of unskilled workers. Yet, worse still, we continue making and purchasing new machines, each of which has to be tooled-up, when the tool-maker's time is worth its weight in gold. That situation is incomprehensible. It is a heavy responsibility, which lies upon the shoulders of the Minister of Labour, that these things should continue.
The Minister of Labour will shortly register certain age groups of women. Let him move women into the war industries quickly. The need is very real, and in many factories training can be better given in the works than in the training establishments. But in this matter of the registration of women, and indeed of men, let us be quite clear on one point. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, or his Parliamentary Secretary, give the House an assurance that, whatever be the station of life of any man or woman whom he selects to serve in industry, such man or woman, subject to the system of appeals which he has announced, will be under as firm and definite an obligation to perform that industrial service as if he or she were called up for the Armed Forces of the Crown? The time has passed when the country will placidly forgive any further vacillation in this matter.
Now may I turn to the second classification of persons, those already in war industries? First, perhaps, I may mention the employers, or, as we should more properly call them to-day, the controllers, because they are in almost every case the heads of controlled establishments under one or other of the Ministries. Here again the Government have not feared to use their powers, and, although it would not be kind to mention names, men with names famous in British industry, the creators of great businesses, have been shown the door and have left their life's work behind them. There has been no undue tenderness for the employers. Let us not complain if the decisions were just; on the contrary, let us applaud the firmness of the Minister. But what has been the Minister's attitude towards his powers over workers in industry? These are his own words:
I have used, and propose to continue to use, them more in a directory sense than in what is generally understood to be a compulsory sense. I am confident that by far the

great majority will be only too willing to accept the directions given. …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1941; col. 89, Vol. 368.]
That was surely exemplary wisdom, but what of the small minority who did and who do refuse to toe the line of the Minister's wishes? Should he not, in statesmanlike vein, have continued his speech thus: "Those who work will receive my support, and I will endeavour to remove their difficulties, but I will see that the laggards at this supreme and perilous hour have their just reward"? Such an utterance would have been to industry both an encouragement and a tonic. It would have indicated a policy which the workshops would have understood and applauded. The 85 or 90 per cent. fine, patriotic men and women in industry up and down the country would at last have seen that which they had long waited to witness, the reward of the ungodly. But what did my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour say? These are his words:
… there will be few cases in which it will be necessary to take further action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1941; cols. 89-90, Vol. 368.]
These words were the slackers' charter. From that moment the slacker knew that my right hon. Friend was not so much in earnest as to be troublesome to him; provided he jogged along as in the days of peace, the Minister of Labour would not worry him very much. Moreover, we have in this connection to-day to bear in mind that this was the Minister's policy at a time when there was a natural temptation for some workers to slack, increased manifold by two factors—firstly, the shortage of workers and, secondly, the high weekly earnings. The moment for a necessary steadying hand on the shoulders of those who needed to take a stand against themselves was missed. Worse still, the policy further greased the slope down which many of the workers were slipping.
But what of the harvest that the country is reaping from this limp and vacillating policy? First we have the widespread failure to work overtime, even in the most urgent war industries. I estimated in an earlier Debate that there was 50 per cent. absenteeism during the scheduled overtime working hours. Everything that I have heard—and I have heard much since I have had this Motion on the Order Paper—has confirmed that figure. Let me cite one example. I am told that in many


of the ports the boilermakers almost to a man walk out at 5 o'clock, or whenever it is that the whistle blows for the end of the normal working day. Overtime is not in their category of thinking, even in these days of peril. It may be said that with the increasing daylight hours there will be an improvement. I hope there will be. But when the decreasing daylight hours come, let us see that there is no worsening of the situation. With regard to absenteeism, there are serious temptations to those who cannot stand against them. There are high wages on Saturdays and, above all, on Sundays, so much so that I am told— and I have seen it mentioned in the Press —that some men are now assessing the period in the week at which they will become liable to Income Tax, and are refusing to work any more after that point has been reached. That calls for, as it has received, the condemnation of the decent men and women in industry; and the condemnation of the Minister also. We have the Essential Work Order and the promise that absenteeism will be curbed; but hon. Members who are in industry will know that the provisions of that Order are so cumbrous that if much absenteeism is prevented it will be more by a fluke than by design. The unwillingness of a large number of workers to go on night shift has not been sufficiently circumscribed by the Minister.
With regard to dilution, I am told that in some areas it has been carried out loyally; and the workers in those areas deserve our thanks. But in some other areas that is not the case. I am told that in Coventry, particularly, the resistance to dilution on the part of some unions has been scandalous. Anti-production practices still continue. I was amazed to receive, only a day or two ago, a letter from one of the most esteemed shipbuilders in this country, saying:
In the days of depression, as various labour-saving devices and methods were introduced, the trade unions fought to keep their men employed —
One does not blame them for that—
and on repair work when pneumatic hammers were introduced, which enabled one man with a tool and his holder-up to do the same work as two riveters, it was insisted that two should stand by to take turns. This practice still obtains on repair work.
It is incomprehensible, when we require our ships to be repaired with the utmost

speed, that these trade practices are still allowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. And what shall we say of strikes? Every hon. Member knows that strikes still continue. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would care to tell the House, at some convenient time, the extent of these strikes, and what he has done to prevent them. Let us be quite clear. These strikes are in contravention of Order 1305 of 1940. If my right hon. Friend is not taking action, it is not because he has not the power. A very sinister situation occurred the other day in connection with what has been called "the apprentices' strike." It may be that the apprentices have a great deal of which they could justifiably com plain, but from time immemorial it has been an established principle that those who strike in industry improperly must go back to work before a committee of inquiry is set up. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave those youths —who, above all, needed saving from the malign influences which are still prevalent in some quarters of industry—their court of inquiry before he asked them to go-back to work. I consider that that act of weakness will lead him a long way in the future. In all this disgraceful catalogue, where have we seen the righteous indignation, the energetic intolerance of wrong things, for which in other times my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour showed himself to be the man?
This policy of faiblesse has failed to get the best out of those in industry. In the aircraft industry, Lord Beaverbrook has done much, by his own energy and drive, to make up for the failure of the Minister of Labour. For that, the country will always be profoundly grateful. But in many war industries there is shocking slackness—and by "slackness," I mean a wide gap between what is done and what could be achieved. I can scarcely have a more weighty supporter than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour himself. It is reported in more than one organ of the Press that on Saturday last, appealing to shipyard workers at Bristol, he gave this estimate of the extra output that they could give:
Thirty per cent. more won't hurt you.
Think on those words. After more than a year and a half of war, and when ships are needed to save this country, 30 per cent. more will not hurt the shipyard workers. The tragedy is that my right


hon. Friend was correct. In spite of the Battle of Britain, in spite of the Battle of the Atlantic, in spite of the threat of invasion, the shipyard workers, on my right hon. Friend's own estimate, could increase output per man by 30 per cent., without its hurting them. Did ever a Minister, after holding office for nearly a year, more frankly admit the failure of his policy?
What of the future? I believe— and I am not alone in this—that industry is entering upon a peculiarly perilous period. As we have seen, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has failed to reprimand those who are failing the country, and has thus induced increasing indiscipline in industry. Whether it be a Cabinet Minister, a Member of Parliament, or a workman at the bench, what is an essential sanction for failure? It is dismissal. And, for the sake of discipline, the power of dismissal must be in the hands of the selector. Now my right hon. Friend is about to flout even this basic canon of organised society

Mr. Lawson: What does the hon. Member mean when he says that the power of dismissal must be in the hands of the selector?

Mr. Simmonds: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman will understand completely. In his own case, the selectors are his electors, and the power of dismissal will be, very properly, in their hands when he comes up for re-election to this House. I think that principle is sufficiently established not to require further discussion.

Mr. Lawson: You mean that the power of dismissal should be in the hands of the employer? If that is what you mean, say so.

Mr. Simmonds: Of course, I mean that if the selector is the employer, that should be so.

Mr. Lawson: Why not say so?

Mr. Simmonds: I am speaking of the general principle, and I am perfectly entitled to do so. If the Minister feels that the employer should remain responsible for his business—and I contend that he should—there clearly ought to be some co-operation with labour, but in this Order we are departing from sound basic principles. Dismissal under this Order will no longer be the function of the management, but of a National Service

officer who has probably never learned in practice even the elements of management. In any event, it has been stated on more than one occasion in this House, and not refuted, that undue consideration has been given by some of these National Service officers to slackers in industry and to those who wanted to migrate and throw up their hands. They have already done damage enough.

Mr. Messer: Does not the hon. Member think that such an Order is justified in the case of an incident which happened last night, when 60 men presented themselves for work at a certain munitions factory and were summarily dismissed?

Mr. Simmonds: I would not like the House to think, nor, indeed, do I think, that the power of dismissal, as in times of peace, should rest unfettered with the employer, but this Order is not based on sound principles. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, though he would not wish me to go further, because, obviously, neither of us, I expect, knows the full details of that case. The question of dismissal must be handled with great care, because it is the nation's interest which both employer and employé must consider primarily at this time. I ought to say that a large number of industrialists, of whom there are hundreds in my own constituency, and many others up and down the country, who have written to me regard this particular proposal with undisguised alarm. They claim—I think rightly—that my right hon. Friend me Minister of Labour has taken away the power of dismissal without putting anything effective in its place. Perhaps the Minister of Labour would suggest that employers' organisations have gone along with him in this matter. I believe that it would be fairer to say that they have been presented with a fait-accompli decision by the War Cabinet, and have been asked to do little more than dot the i's and cross the t's of that policy. Let responsibility, therefore, lie where it rightly falls. It is time that employers' organisations should seriously consider whether it is in the national interest for them to remain in a position which is both ambiguous and misleading.
In short, industry is lacking hundreds of thousands of hands which are available yet not available. It is lacking, on


account of slackness and indiscipline, a considerable percentage output which is available yet not available. Worst of all, the policy that has been followed is being pressed further home. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is therefore playing for high stakes. Yet I believe there is still time to save the situation, if he will take steps to ensure that all persons of all classes who are not otherwise usefully engaged do their industrial duty. Let him fearlessly displace inefficient management and punish all in industry who slack. Let him treat strikers in harmony with their own selfishness. In short, let him give to industry an esprit de corps backed by authority and discipline, so that each man at the bench and each woman at the machine shall, when this war is over, be proud to face even our doughtiest fighters and say, "We too made our sacrifices; we too played our part."

Mr. A. Edwards: I would like to ask the hon. Member a question and to give him the opportunity of making a reply. He has referred to the slackers' charter, and he quoted the boilermakers, I think he said, of the North-East Coast.

Mr. Simmonds: No.

Mr. Edwards: But the hon. Member quoted the boilermakers, and said that they always left work when the buzzer went and refused to work overtime. My evidence is that boilermakers have been criticised for working too much overtime. In fact, we have evidence—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to speak, he will have an opportunity later. A mere question is permissible, but not a speech or an argument.

Mr. Simmonds: May I answer the question? I stated, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, that in certain areas, so I am informed, that is taking place. I make no further statement.

Mr. Edwards: I rather want to get the evidence on record, because I can give the hon. Member very important evidence to the contrary.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been submitted by my

hon. Friend in a complete and powerful speech to the House.
All of us who are concerned with industrial activities relating to the war have the deepest sympathy with the Minister of Labour in the difficult situation in which he finds himself, and the last thing that would occur to any of us would be to make any comment in the course of this Debate which would embarrass him in the smallest degree in the execution of his very menacing and heavy duties in these difficult days. At the same time, as my hon. Friend has stated, there is a sense of dissatisfaction throughout the country that the mobilisation of labour has not been carried out with the vigour, efficiency and boldness which the perils of the time through which we are passing demand. There has been a good deal of disturbance of mind among those who are engaged in vital work for the war. In February last the National Union of Manufacturers, which in its Birmingham branch numbers 600 of the smaller people—those engaged in the smaller industries, in almost every case in war production—adopted a resolution which was forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Minister. These are the terms of that resolution:
That this meeting of the Midland Council of the National Union of Manufacturers is emphatically of the opinion that compulsory powers be immediately applied to reduce the labour shortage, particularly in the Midland area.
The feeling is that, when, no doubt, the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the whole machinery of the Ministry of Labour are actively engaged in promoting production for the war, there is something still left undone in bringing into the total war effort that volume of active productive capacity and power which is still available. On that occasion the Midland Council stated how difficult it was to mobilise labour for the requirements of industry in the Midland area. I am associated with one of the largest munition factories in the country, and we have very great difficulty from time to time in maintaining anything like the man-power and woman-power essential for the continuity of output of articles essential hour by hour in time of war.
More than 12 months ago the Prime Minister appealed for 100,000 women workers to come at once into war production, and I would like to know, and I am


sure the; House too would like to know, what response has been made to that appeal. Only a fortnight or three weeks ago the Minister of Labour himself also appealed for 100,000 women workers. But mere appeals will not be sufficient to bring the available labour into industry for war purposes. While there may be a difficulty about making a wholesale demand for the application for compulsory powers, we feel that the Minister has not made enough use of those powers which he received from Parliament in order to secure the largest possible contribution of man and woman-power for the war effort. So, I hope that we shall be told to-day to what extent women have responded. My Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) came to Birmingham on a recent Sunday afternoon, at the greatest inconvenience to herself, and made a striking and touching appeal to the women of Birmingham to come forward in response to demands made by the Minister of Labour. It is true that a certain number did come forward, but I am sorry to say that the response was not so good as one might have expected.
The Minister is now making an appeal —a pathetic appeal—for 50,000 men for our shipyards, and here, too, I hope we shall be told to what extent his appeal is being met. As my hon. Friend stated in his speech, nothing at the moment is more important in the continuance of the total war effort than the output of ships in our shipyards. Is the Minister really successful in his recruiting in this somewhat desultory way? In Debates of this kind we do not, I think, need to dwell on what may be regarded as negligence or indifference in the past. The function of the House of Commons today is to give whatever "ginger" it can to Ministers in order that they shall carry out to the fullness of their power the effort necessary for the conduct of the war. With regard to the expansion of the present training system, the training of war workers has been in process for a considerable time, but I do not think it is sufficient in capacity, and it does not provide opportunities for the immense numbers of unskilled people to undergo training. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us to-day to what extent the present system of training is operating and how far it can be usefully expanded.
There are only two ways in which the Minister reviews the recruiting of labour for war production. The first is by his appeals for volunteers, and the second is through the concentration of labour, which is now being carried out by the President of the Board of Trade. No doubt we shall get, through the second of these processes, a considerable contribution to the volume of available labour, but it seems to me that there is a danger, in this concentration of industry, of doing a certain amount of harm to the non-essential industries on which other essential industries rely for maintenance. Certain distributive trades, for example, cannot give their working personnel to munitions production without at the same time injuring essential industry which is dependent upon them to a greater or less degree.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Would not the hon. Member in present conditions regard the distribution of food through shops as a work of very great importance?

Sir P. Hannon: That is a point I have in mind and the point I was trying to bring to the notice of the House. There are limitations to the extent to which you can mobilise people from non-essential industry to essential industry without doing harm to the non-essential industry which is contributing in some way to the successful efforts of the essential industry. The Minister, of course, has compelling power at his disposal. The other day, when he made a statement with regard to the recruitment of 100,000 women for war production work, he said that if the response was not satisfactory, he would take certain steps with the powers which he possesses, and I hope to hear to-day the extent to which his appeal has been successful and whether he proposes to introduce at once the necessary measures in order to secure all the women required. How are we recruiting women for the Army? The Secretary of State for War said in the House the other day that every time a woman took up war work she liberated a soldier for fighting purposes. Originally the figure of 60,000 was aimed at for the A.T.S., and I think the House would like to know how many of this number have been recruited. One is glad to observe that the Minister of Labour has lately exercised to some extent the powers he possesses in


the taking-over of dock labour and the interchangeeability of labour for the docks. In doing so, he has performed a service which the country recognises is of great value, and I hope that the good work in that direction will continue to be applied in other directions.
We have in this country a mass of people—it is said that they are in the minority—who will not join the Army, go into munitions production or have anything to do with any other phase of national activity unless they are compelled. In these cases compulsory powers must ultimately be applied. The tendency where the voluntary principle prevails is, "Let the other fellow do it," and I think the time has come when the Minister must exercise his powers, so that there is no excuse for planting the responsibility on the other fellow. There is some difficulty in understanding what a war worker is. We say that everybody who is contributing to war activity, either indirectly or directly, is a war worker, but it would be as well if the Parliamentary Secretary would define the precise dividing line between what is a war worker and what is not, and the extent to which people who have been mobilised for war production cross the line which divides these two categories.
In their very essence, appeals for volunteers indicate weakness, and at this moment they do so more than ever. Fighting for our lives, as we are, we cannot depend upon the voluntary system of recruitment in industry to-day. In the "Birmingham Post," or in any of the daily newspapers in the provinces, one finds on the front pages columns of advertisements of jobs available at industrial works. Instead of having some means by which such labour becomes available, the employers have to advertise in the newspapers. It is a fact that at the beginning of the war the trade unions showed a magnificent spirit and sacrificed a great many of the principles and privileges for which they have in the past fought so hard, but somehow or other, the vigour of that initial effort seems to have faded away in recent months. Some time before the Christmas period, it was clear that in the labour organisation with which I come into contact there was a softening and a weakening of that effort which had been so vigorous and hopeful before. The

Minister is now giving his personal attention to these curious ups and downs in the industrial life of the country, but in these days we cannot put too much vitality and stimulus into the whole labour effort, managers as well as men.
I am glad this Amendment has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). I do not think there is among the younger generation of industrialists in this country—at all events, among manufacturers engaged in vital industry—anyone who has given more striking evidence than my hon. Friend has of his capacity to handle labour problems and create that sort of atmosphere in industry which is so essential to maximum production, and especially production in the war period. If anybody would like to see something of a highly organised industry, I suggest that he should visit the works of my hon. Friend at a certain point in the immediate neighbourhood of London. Anybody doing so will be satisfied that every consideration affecting the welfare of the workers, every consideration of their security and safety in the works, every consideration for establishing a bond of understanding between employer and workpeople, has been brought into play in the organisation of that undertaking. My hon. Friend has done more than that. When an appeal was made by the Government that industries should be started in the Special Areas, my hon. Friend, at very considerable risk and taking a very heavy burden of financial responsibilities on his shoulders, undertook to start a factory in the Special Areas. To-day he is the largest employer of labour in that particular type of factory in the Special Areas. I know that hon. Members who were, and still are, interested in the Special Areas will appreciate that action on his part.
In conclusion, we all realise the heavy burden which the Minister of Labour has to bear, and we appreciate his services to the country. He has been an outstanding figure in our national life, and particularly in our industrial life, for a generation. I remember how, many years ago, when he had not at the sides of his forehead those patches of greying hair— when he was young and fresh and fit— he faced an audience at Bristol when I was first standing for Parliament. He had an amazing faculty for command over the


people he addressed. Since those days he has done great work for the nation. He could not do better work now than by just putting a little more energy, more drive, more push, into the man-power necessary for productive work in this country. I hope he will assure the House and the country that this is being done. Everybody in this country is willing if he knows where to go, but there are masses of people who do not want to go until they are sent for under compulsory powers. I have had a great deal to do with labour organisations. I am associated with industries which employ very large numbers of people. I pay my tribute to these people for their loyalty and devotion. In the presence of great dangers, these men and women have showed courage and fortitude of a very exalted quality. Nevertheless, there are things here and there which have to be looked into, there are gaps to be filled, and it is the filling of those gaps, the recruitment of the necessary man-power to fill them, that has caused so much dissatisfaction in the House and outside. I hope we shall have from the Minister a declaration of policy indicating to the country that, with the powers in his hands, he intends to do his job and make the mobilisation of manpower for war purposes a first principle. In the discharge of that duty he will have the complete support of the House.

Mr. Lawson: I think the House is pleased, as I am, that the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has moved this Amendment. Although I shall strongly disagree with the hon. Member on many points, I believe he has rendered a service by bringing this matter before the House, for undoubtedly there are whispers abroad concerning workers in particular and workers in general. I listened to the hon. Member's speech, and to the speech of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), as I listened to the Debate on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, and I heard astonishingly little to justify many of the criticisms that are made outside. If the hon. Members had any particular criticism on any scale to make which they did not think it right to divulge to the House because of the publicity which might be given to it by our enemies or otherwise, it would be another matter. I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate this

matter, because we can also talk to the employers' representatives about the position of organising labour. How does it come about that the employers' organisations are so late in the day in their deep desire for the proper organisation of labour for war-production purposes? Where were they two or three years ago when the Trades Union Congress was asking the Government to show some foresight and organise and mobilise labour, and put it in its proper categories in order to obtain full advantage of the available man-power?

Sir P. Hannon: There is an obvious retort to the hon. Member's question. While it is quite true that the Trades Union Congress did pass resolutions, the fact remains that trade unionists in this House voted against every Defence Estimate.

Mr. Lawson: That is an old one; we can easily go on and discuss the grounds upon which we voted against the Defence Estimates, but in doing so we should get into the diplomatic field, where, I think, the hon. Member and his friends would probably find they had a worse case. What I was referring to was the simple A.B.C. attitude of the Trades Union Congress. Repeatedly deputations came to the Government asking that steps should be taken to organise labour, and these took place even before war broke out. I have looked the matter up very carefully, and I find that the representatives of organised industrial workers have documented statements and dates. They have also documented the requests they made to the Government, calling for the proper organisation and utilisation of labour to get ahead with the job. I can tell the two representatives of the employers who have spoken to-day—

Mr. Simmonds: I am not a representative of the employers.

Mr. Lawson: I understood that the hon. Member said he was.

Mr. Simmonds: I am no representative of the employers. I speak for myself.

Mr. Lawson: I can tell the hon. Members that when 'this matter is closely examined, it will be found that the employers, who are making the criticisms at the present time, will come very badly out of it. The Minister for Labour has been


an outstanding figure in the trade-union world. May I say, in his presence, that he and one or two others had much to do with the constructive side of trade unionism which has given it a great deal of its power? The Minister of Labour, by coming into the Government with his influence in the trade-union world, has been able to do things which very few men would have been able to accomplish. He has been able to do this because he carries the confidence of the great masses of the workers. Whatever criticism there may be about defects in organisation and lack of good will on the part of certain people and groups of people, the tendency of the critics is always to overlook the terrifically multiplied power which the right hon. Gentleman has brought about as a result of his influence and command of the confidence of the great masses of the workers of the country. The seconder of the Amendment paid some tribute to the workers. In war-time we always tend to overlook the great things which are being accomplished, and the criticisms which are made go into the enemy's camp. I do not say that we should not make criticisms, but all the same they go into the enemy's camp. For my part, I believe that this should go into the enemy's camp too, that in no country in the world which is governed and dominated by dictators, and where workers are lashed to their work as were the workers in the days of Pharaoh, can such excellent results be achieved as in this country, where free workers give their services willingly.
I was surprised to hear the criticisms about overtime. One of the things to which I was going to draw the Minister's attention, to-day, was the fact that from my observations this overtime working is getting into the danger zone from the point of view of the exhaustion of the worker. Quite recently I have met workers who have been giving long hours for weeks and months, and wish to continue to do so, although they feel they have come to the limit. Their readiness to work overtime has been an outstanding feature, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to go carefully in the matter because of the effect upon the physique of the workers. But there is another side to this question of the willingness of the workers. I represent an industry which, if there are any sweets being given out, has had very little of them.

They have had hard times working in a very important industry. At the time that France fell we were asking them to increase their output, and they said, right willingly, "We will." They would do anything. At that time a half of the collieries in my part of the world were idle, and their leaders had to tell the men that they would have to go away to other pits. Do employers know what it is to face workers and ask them to do things like this? It takes a very courageous man to do it, because the worker has so much right on his side. He has always worked on the edge of necessity. The wages have never been very high. But irrespective of the changed conditions these men in various coalfields have left, gone to other pits, gone to any job the Minister of Labour has asked them to go to, and I think he would be the first to pay tribute to them.
Now there is criticism about employers not having the right of dismissal. The hon. Member failed to look at the other side of the picture. Before I came here on Monday morning two young men came to see me. They said they were working for So-and-so. They had been offered a job in another industry, but he would not let them go. I said that was a matter for their trade union, and I had nothing to do with it. They said they were not in a union; their employer would not let them be in one. That is another side of the question. Does the hon. Member think that if the employer has a right to keep men there, he should still have the right to dismiss them? The control of employment was demanded by public interest. Surely the employer ought to be governed by the public interest too. I think, if the the hon. Gentleman had a second look at the matter, he would hardly continue that line of argument.
I am not out to defend any workers who are not doing what they ought to do and are not making their proper contribution in a great crisis like this to a victory which is essential for the very freedom that they would claim, but I think, when these matters are raised in the House, those who raise them ought to be more explicit, and they ought to be dealt with either here or somewhere else, or this business ought to be dropped in the country. I have heard a good deal about what the industrial magnates are


sacrificing. It is true I could speak of one-man industries, for instance, where gallant young people have built up an industry at very great personal sacrifice, and they have had to go into the Army and all their goodwill and everything have gone. It may never return. I think that is a pathetic and a very grave thing from the point of view of the drive in the build-up of industry generally. I know small businesses which have gone down. Will the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment assert that profits are still not being made by interested people? I do not know how it is done. I am not familiar with these things, but, as I look around, there is not exactly that state of poverty that one might have expected from the expressions that are used. There are no signs of grave poverty in quarters connected with company promotion. I would not import any bitterness into a Debate of this description.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to industry as a whole or to a particular section of industry? What test will he apply when he talks about every appearance of wealth? Is he forgetting that many of these industries were in a state of misery up to a couple of years ago?

Mr. Lawson: I know that many of them were in a state of misery before the war, and I know that if it had not been for undiluted profit-making of some concerns, some very essential industries would have been going to-day which would have been very useful to the country. I am pleased that the workers were organised to such an extent that when the Government of the day had the good sense to take advantage of their experience they were strong enough and able enough and influential enough to command the respect of the great mass of the workers. In the last war the workers were at the tail-end of the national procession. You had not names like that of the Minister of Labour known in the country then as they are now. Interruption.] That is true, but the fact remains that it was 1916 or 1917 before the Government had the good sense to take hold and command the respect of the industrial workers. The position is different to-day. I hope that the respect shown for the horny-handed sons of toil, for the men at the bench, in the field and

in various classes of work will continue after the war. I hope, too, that the organised trade union forces will play a much bigger part in the reconstruction of industry than they were allowed to do last time. One of the things which the hon. Gentleman kept off was land. Land is escaping wonderfully from all the criticisms that are being made. I know that there is a certain amount of control.

Mr. Simmonds: There is an amount of requisitioning, too.

Mr. Lawson: There are millions of acres that would have been in good use but for private ownership and lack of drainage and the desire to leave it unused for the purposes of future profit. I have had to beg for a man who has been on a farm nearly a quarter of a century, and if it had not been for the local agricultural committee he would have been out of his farm, for the landlord, the private interests, did not care even though hundreds of acres were unused. That is still going on to a certain extent. I do not want to blame the Ministry of Labour for that, but they have influences in quarters where I have no influence, and I ask them to be as enthusiastic with manufacturers and in quarters where land counts as they are with the workers. If there is any real criticism against the workers that impedes the production of war necessities they should be tabled frankly, and those responsible for the workers' side will not hesitate to face any problems placed before them.

Sir Adam Maitland: I am always happy to be able to follow the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and I would like to join him in the tribute he paid to the Mover of this Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). We are all under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for having raised a subject of such importance. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has spent an honourable life in the service of mankind, and I hope he will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not follow some of his arguments in detail. I can perhaps deal with his reference to land and his regret that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not refer to it. It seems to me that that subject is outside the terms of the Amendment, and I might


incur the displeasure of the Chair if I pursued it. I do not construe the Amendment as making the slightest reflection upon the workers. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street suggested that no tribute had been paid to those engaged in industry. Let me say that it is my firm conviction that under inspired leadership and with confidence in efficient management the industrial capacity of British labour is matchless and unbeatable. I pay every possible tribute to the great service which the ordinary common men and women of England are rendering to the service of their country to-day. I do not think that either of the hon. Members who supported the Amendment suggested that their criticisms were against those people whose work we admire. Their Amendment dealt with the responsibility of the Government.
We all recognise that it is the un-escapable responsibility of the Government in war time to see that the best and most effective use is made of the manpower of the country. It is not in any sense any criticism of a personal nature which disturbs the minds of people to-day. On the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Minister of National Service everybody appreciated that he had great experience in the industrial life of the nation, that he commanded the great confidence of a large section of the community and that he would bring to the House knowledge, experience and wisdom which we should be glad to have. But because we feel that, it must not seal our lips if there should arise questions about which we wish to have some information, nor should it seal our lips if we feel that some kind of friendly criticism is necessary to help him in his important task. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the other day in answer to a Supplementary Question say something which, because it was in answer to a Supplementary, might not be his considered view. He said that you could not treat the ordinary worker as you treated the soldier. I thought at the time that that was rather doubtful psychology. I believe that the workers of this country are always ahead of the Government in what they are prepared to do. I believe that the Government can introduce such legislation as they think proper and that if it is administered vigorously and effectively the people will readily respond. I say to those in the

Government who are particularly responsible for directing man-power, "Do not be timid; be bold, be courageous, be audacious and be daring. The more courageous, the more audacious and the more daring you are the greater will be the measure of response which will be given by the people." My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street asked for a concrete example as to what was exercising the minds of hon. Members and why there was disturbance, hesitancy and doubt as to whether or not we are really putting into this great national effort all that we possibly can. Are the responsible Ministers really satisfied that we are making the best possible use of oar industrial man- and woman-power?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that policy to finance, land and in other ways?

Sir A. Maitland: We are dealing with industrial man-power, and when one is concentrating on a particular topic one cannot be drawn aside to answer a question of that kind when there is no opportunity of developing the argument adequately.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is what the worker wants to know.

Sir A. Maitland: I will say one sentence in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and that is that the Government have already the power to take possession of persons, property and land, and it is not a question of my individual view, because it is the inescapable responsibility of the Government. If the Government think it is right to take land as well as to control industry the responsibility is theirs. All we can do in this House, in these days of restricted Debates, is to take every opportunity to encourage, to inspire and to spur the Government on to appreciation of what is expected of them by the people of the land.
There are four points which I should like to put forward for the consideration of the Minister. They are derived from lessons which the last war brought home very forcibly. They are: The supply of skilled men is and will always be inadequate in war-time; that it will be necessary to bring in the largest possible number of unskilled workers to dilute


skilled labour; that women must be employed on the largest possible scale; and that in order to get economic production machinery must be worked fully at night as well as by day. Those were the four obvious lessons which the last war brought home to us, and at that time mechanisation of the fighting forces was practically in its infancy. If they were important then they are more important now. As my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said, there are directions in which things ought to be improved, and if we get at the source of the trouble we can then begin to treat it. The Minister said at Bristol the other day that he was calling for a 30 per cent. increase in output. Every hon. Member knows there is a very large percentage of avoidable absenteeism.

Mr. Kirkwood: Where is it? Which is the industry?

Sir A. Maitland: I happen to be serving upon a Select Committee of this House, and I cannot divulge information until it has been presented to the House in the form of a report, and so I must ask my hon. Friend to forgive me if I do not give him the specific information, but perhaps in private I may have an opportunity of showing him some evidence which will satisfy him as to the absenteeism in Government factories; and if he wants another example—and this is more generally known—absenteeism is rife in the coal industry. Avoidable absenteeism is a very important matter. Everybody recognises that in any large organisation there will be a certain amount of absenteeism which is unavoidable, as it arises from sickness and other similar causes, but there is much more absenteeism than can be justified—if any of it can be—having regard to our circumstances. However, that is a matter for the executive authority.
Another point which has already been referred to is that in Government factories, and in many munition factories controlled by the Government though managed by private firms or individuals, we are not getting the production which ought to be coming from them, and that there are too many attempts to throw dust in the eyes of those who visit those factories. If a Government inspector is coming round everybody is told to be very busy, or to look as if he were busy. These things are known, and the tragedy

is that they are going on when the nation is in dire peril. If this Debate has done nothing more I hope that it has at any rate indicated to the Minister of Labour that there is grave concern about the position of affairs, and that in any courageous steps which they take they will have the full support of every section of the House.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) made one comment which I really cannot allow to pass without a reference. He spoke of the astonishing paradox, as it seems to me, that in time of war there is invariably a shortage of skilled labour, whereas he would be the first to admit that in peace there is often too much skilled labour available. I am not going to develop an argument about that, but will only say that I hope that he and all other hon. Members will realise that when this war ends there must not be a return to that state of things, that if it is possible to employ all skilled labour in time of war for the production of things which we do not really want, it must be possible when peace comes to see that that labour is not thrown upon the scrap heap but is employed in producing goods which we really do want to use.
I am sorry that the hon. Member who opened the Debate on this Amendment has gone, because I wanted to take him to task on one or two matters. He spoke of his experience of the falling-off in works output and a certain reference was made to the action of boiler-makers. In my experience I have not found the hanging back to which he referred. I agree that all men are not archangels, with wings sprouting out of their backs, but, broad and large, my experience has been that the worker has buckled-to in a good and proper manner. As to boiler-makers in particular, I am interested in a firm which makes nothing else but boilers, and my experience has been entirely the contrary of his. The boiler-makers have insisted upon as much overtime as possible and upon carrying on with their work in spite of air-raid warnings and have given the maximum of production.
The hon. Member went on to refer to the new Regulation concerning the right of dismissal. I understand his point perfectly—that it is the ultimate weapon, if you like, which can be used against a refractory person; but I also would point


out that it has always seemed to me to be a most unjust state of things that in my industry workers are on what is called a day-to-day contract. In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong that skilled men, or semi-skilled men, or even a floor sweeper for that matter, should be liable to be turned off at a day's notice. I am delighted to see the New regulation which requires a week's notice to be given. My hon. Friend was not correct in saying that in this way power has been taken away from managements. All that has happened is that people cannot be turned off at short notice. You can give a man a week's notice, and in that interval can discuss his case with the local representative of the Ministry, and if it is agreed that the man ought to be turned off then he will be turned off.
On the question of absenteeism, my experience has been a little bit like that of the hon. Member who spoke before me. It arises, I think, from several reasons. I do not think it is primarily due to the unwillingness of the workers to work, but that it may be put down to the fact that there has been a great deal too much continuous overtime and too much working of seven-day weeks. These things wear the people out, and they are naturally apt to say, "I want a day off. I'm stale." I am sure that is the reason. It ought to be laid down that people should not be put to work seven-day weeks. I say, at the same time, that managements ought to be encouraged to run machines seven-day weeks. By shifting your workers round you can make them do a six-day week whilst your machines are doing a seven-day week.
Some workers do not realise sufficiently, and it is an awful job getting it drummed into the noddles of some of them, that if you lose time on a batch of machines, you can never make it up again. I wish the Ministry could do something about this. It does not come very well from employers, because the men always think there is a catch in it. Take, for example, a group of horizontal boring machines. If horizontal boring drops off, you upset the production of the whole shop about three months hence, and you can never get it back again. It is no use saying, "I can pick it up again next week." You cannot. Lost time can never be recovered. I do not think that people ought to be

regarded as guilty of pernicious absenteeism, but it ought to be drummed into some of them that time lost can never be got back and leads to a dreadful falling-off in production.
At the risk of being regarded by the Minister and his Department as trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, I will endeavour to discuss whether the way in which we are setting about the collecting of labour for essential purposes is the right one. Government officials, particularly, seem to have an airy-fairy idea that you can get the maximum war effort by picking people out of jobs which they can do and dumping them down somewhere else to do jobs about which they know nothing. Let me ask a question or two about the comb-outs which may or may not have taken place. I would like first to ask about Government offices. Have the Ministry had a look at Government offices to see how many people are really doing what I call a 100 per cent. day?
Is the machinery right? Let me take one example. We are having difficulties in business to-day in getting ordinary shorthand-typists. Some of these workers have been dumped by the score into Government offices, yet you can find many people there who do not know how to dictate an ordinary letter. My contention is that anybody who understands running an industrial machine is aware that by mechanising an office you can reduce the number of clerical staff required. I was disappointed to get an answer the other day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that in Government Departments all over the country there is a total of under 400 dictaphones in use. I have 40 in use in my own business. You could reduce the clerical staff in Government offices enormously by a bit of clerical mechanisation, apart from the result that you would achieve in the increased efficiency of the people who do the work. I should die an untimely—or perhaps a timely—death if I did not have a dictaphone by my bedside. I ask that Government offices should be properly combed out before a general assault is made on industry.
When we were discussing the centralisation of industry the other day I was surprised to hear no reference made to banks. I do not propose to discuss questions of banking now, but I want to point out to the Minister that in practically


every town all the joint stock banks have one or more branches. Is it not possible to do a bit of centralisation there? I cannot believe that it is really necessary to have all those branches of all those banks. Centralisation would probably free a fair amount of necessary clerical labour. Another, but altogether different, point is horse-racing. I had a Question on this subject on the Paper to-day, but it was not arrived at, and has been deferred. I do not know what the answer will be. I am not a kill-joy by any manner of means, and I did not put the Question down a propos of anything in this Debate but how many people are involved in keeping horse-racing going? I know the arguments about the. necessity of racing for bloodstock breeding, and the rest of it, but would it absolutely demoralise bloodstock if horse-racing were suspended for six or nine months? As to dog-racing I do not feel quite so strongly, because there are not so many people employed, but double the number of horses are in training to-day as compared to during the last war. Is that right? Is it really necessary? And could not the people be better employed elsewhere?
Before I leave the subject of industrial works, I have another point to raise. We all know what a tremendous amount of interruption there is in centres of production because of air raids and air-raid warnings. I ask the Minister to consider issuing very definite instructions that really proper immediate cover should be provided as a protection for all the workers. This is an important point in production and in the use of man-power. It is no use having your Observer Corps' warnings distributed indiscriminately in works. I have a record of what happens, and I could talk for an hour on the subject and give an entertaining account of our own experiences. People talk about industrial workers being in the front line; they are in a far worse position. The soldier in the front line is busy defending himself and is doing nothing else. He is looking out for the enemy because he has nothing else to do. The industrial worker is told, "You are in the front line, but you must get on with your job and not pay any attention to what the enemy are doing." The only way to prevent loss of time in industrial works is to give men such blast- and splinter-proof cover that they can get into it within 15 seconds

of the sounding of an alarm. I am sure that is the right way. I have had experience of it, because we have done it at our works. Men will work right up to the time that the enemy aeroplane is sighted, if you have your own spotters. A lot of works will not pay attention to this matter, but the workers ought to have good protection. It may have been all very well during the past winter. Not all the towns in England have been blitzed, but when the next time comes you may find that the production will cease altogether unless you have protection for all the people. You cannot blame them for stopping production unless they have something into which they can get quickly. It ought to be obligatory on all employers to offer that protection.
There is an appalling waste of manpower in the spotting system. Take the case in my own area. There are six or seven industrial works, and every one of them has, I believe, its own roof spotters. If a roof-spotting system is to run efficiently, it must go on all the time the workers are in the factory, so nowadays you have to have a 24-hour system of roof spotters. It is no use having solitary men. You must have three shifts of two men each. The result is that you need 56 men for all these works, doing nothing but gaze at the sky. That applies to engineering works as well as to others. If you count the people who are standing on other roofs, it means that, in a comparatively small town, 200 or 300 people are gazing at the sky. Is it not possible to centralise the spotting system so that an immediate warning can be given that enemy aeroplanes are appearing overhead? We appear to be one of the Clapham Junctions for air raids, and we get rather more of them than other people do. Scarcely a day passes but that we have six or seven warnings. If labour is to be economised, it is essential to have a central watching system organised in every town so that time is not wasted.
An hon. Gentleman criticised Government training centres. I agreed with much of what he said, but with other statements I did not agree. The training centres have served a very useful purpose, and I would not like to see them reduced, but I agree that training in the workshops is usually far more effective and quick than training anywhere else. I understood the hon. Member to say—and I


am sorry that he is not here—that he did not think that there was sufficient training in the workshops. Again, that is not my experience. We have not had any difficulty with the union men or others. They have been very good in collaborating as much as they can in training the maximum number of people, and sometimes to their own disadvantage, because you cannot train a man unless you actually let him do the job, and if, when he does the job, he makes a botch of it, the skilled worker is likely to be penalised. [An Hon. Member: "Including the pieceworker."] As my hon. Friend points out, that must affect the piece-worker.
I wish to say a word about the new age reservations. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I have misread the Regulations. I hope I have, but I would put at least this point to him. He will fall into a profound error if he thinks that those new age limitations are necessarily right, and I hope that he will give representatives of organised labour and employers an opportunity for discussing in their districts exactly how those age limitations will affect industry in their particular districts. On the figures that I have seen—the hon. Gentleman has told me that I am wrong— it is going to have the effect of shutting me up altogether.

Mr. Granville: In this House?

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry if I am boring my hon. Friend. That might be very desirable, but it would probably take more than my Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do it. It is really a serious matter that what applies in one district does not apply in another, and in general engineering especially what applies in one engineering works applies quite differently in another. It is a great mistake to classify clerks as clerks. I know that that sounds silly, but in an engineering works clerks are experienced people. They do not just write notes and type letters. I found, for instance, that under this new registration the whole of our wages and costs office is going to be wrecked. It is no use telling me that I must get some older men to do the work. The poor old chaps could not do it, especially when there is a multiplicity of arrangements and interruptions over which we have no control. I hope that point is being attended to.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): If the hon. Member would allow me to interrupt him, when the schedule is published it will be seen that careful provision has been made to distinguish between those working in protected industries and in unprotected industries. Without knowing full details of my hon. Friend's business, I do not know how it will affect his important work.

Mr. Stokes: I am sorry that I must differ from my hon. Friend. I am a protected industry. The employers held a meeting on this point a few days ago, and they are very upset about it. Of course, we may have had the wrong papers. With all respect to my hon. Friend, his Ministry have a habit of changing their minds.

Mr. Assheton: We have an enormous number of representations from all over the country, and if, upon those representations, we change our minds it is not our fault.

Mr. Stokes: I do not dispute it, but from the papers that have come to us, we are in for a sticky time. I am really trying to help my hon. Friend, and I thought it easier to make a speech to him than to write a letter.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member did write me a letter.

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend should not give me away like that. The point which disturbs me is this: We seem to be decided on the fact that we have not enough men, women or anything, that they must all be pooled and put into a central boiling pot. But for what purpose? I would like to know what is the war strategy. Where are these people to go? Are we to have an Army of 10,000,000? For what are they wanted? We are not killing people off at anything like the same late as we were able to do in the last war; and I hope that no one is so insane as to think that we shall try and invade Europe without American help, and we have already declared that we do not want man-power from America. What is it all about? Why should not the House be told the general strategy of the war? I fail to understand the necessity for raking up all the people, taking them out of one industry and putting most of them into a useless industry without any assurance as to what they are to do ultimately.

Mr. Granville: I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) with the greatest interest, as I always listen to his versatile speeches in this House, and I hasten to assure him that I should be the first to regret it if any action by the Minister of Labour were to create a zone of silence on the third Bench below the Gangway. I do not wish to follow the hon. Member on his tours with regard to dictaphones and whether the Minister of Labour should have a dictaphone beside his bed; neither do I wish to follow the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who always speaks with great experience and authority on these matters, on the question of the motive of private profit in the armament industry. The only observation I would make upon that subject is that I hope that if we ever resume those peacetime Debates which we used to hold in this House upon the private manufacture of armaments, whatever the outcome of that may be, we shall never allow the armament industry in this country to get into the state it was in before this war broke out. I remember the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) deploring the fact that we allowed the skilled men connected with the armament industry to go out of the industry, and it is a deplorable fact that we always reach these acute problems of man-power in time of war. I think the last occasion on which we had a Debate on man-power touching on the problem of production and the supply of materials was in January, just over two months ago, and it was then recognised by the Prime Minister that this would be one of the most serious problems that this country would have to face.
Therefore, I think we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for giving the House another opportunity for discussing this vital question of man-power in relation to the war effort. I listened to the whole of his speech, and I agree with almost everything he said. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was taking notes, and I hope he took note of many of those points which were brought forward by my hon. Friend, because they come from a good deal of experience and a knowledge of the industry. I do not desire to deal

with the part of this problem which concerns the demand by the Services for man-power. Neither do I wish to deal with the aspect of this problem which is freshly created by the Bill which was introduced by the President of the Board of Trade with regard to centration of industry. I would like to deal more particularly with the organisation of the war and the armament industries themselves in relation to man-power. We have had a very quiet, useful, constructive and sedate Debate on this subject, and I hope that we shall not forget that the subject that we are debating is one which vitally affects the fortunes of our war effort in the future, because the supply of equipment, aircraft and other vital materials depend upon how this problem is dealt with.
In my view, the single test of the organisation of industrial man-power is war output. In war we cannot afford to look at this problem from the theoretical point of view; we cannot sit down and make plans and graphs and deal with it on a normal, idealistic basis, because we are subject to war conditions in industry. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, when he approaches this problem in his office day by day, has to approach it not from the point of view as things as he would like them to be, but from that of the situation as he finds it in reality. The approach of the War Cabinet and the Minister of Labour to this problem must be, therefore, largely upon an emergency, flexible basis. Nothing can be rigidly fixed and unalterable. They are dealing with a situation in industry which, for its supply of raw materials or machine tools, may be dependent on whether or not those things successfully negotiate the Atlantic. They are dealing with a situation subject to the emergency of a factory being bombarded from the air. We have heard from questions put in the House to the Minister of Transport that there are serious transport difficulties. We know also that materials and man-power are subject to War Cabinet priorities. We know it may be necessary—it may in fact have been done already—to disperse a large percentage of the concentrated production of armaments in the country. Those are all conditions obtaining in war. I should therefore have thought that, just as I believe that the single test of the


organisation of man-power is war output, the cardinal factor in this situation, in which you have a worker with a roof over his head, with power and machines and with a supply of raw materials, would have been to obtain 100 per cent. human output from that worker. If you take that as the cardinal factor, quite obviously there must be much give and take, and there must also be many compromises which would not normally be entertained.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment quite rightly said that in actual fact the control of managements exists now. I am not going to join in the discussion, which I think was construed upon a wrong basis, as to whether trade unions or employers are associated with this or that point of view, but let us face the fact that anyone who has had experience in the war industries in this country must know that there is fairly complete control of such industries from the points of view of management and of men. No management, if it is engaged upon the production of an important article associated with the war programme, can refuse to carry out instructions which may be given to it by the competent authority. It has been rightly said that the competent authority, which may be the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, or the contracts side of the Admiralty, has complete power to change any management either which is reactionary, which is not co-operating in the war effort, or which is inefficient. So there is complete power in that direction. Moreover, the direct contractors or constructors are told what to produce, how to produce it, and very often where to produce it. The supply of labour and materials comes under direct Government control. I do not wish to be led down the side street of a discussion on the question of profits, but the fact is that the price, the profits and the capital of industry engaged in war production are definitely controlled, and power is in the hands of the Government to extend that control under the Defence Regulations. I put it to some of my hon. Friends opposite that that goes a long way towards the conception of a war utility in the British armaments industry to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has the power to control the

workers. I have never been in favour of the conscription of labour, and to a certain extent I have agreed with the Minister of Labour on this point. There was a very strong case to be made out for it at the beginning of the war, but bearing in mind the description I have attempted to give of the actual working conditions in the war industries to-day, any attempt to change over from the present system would, I think, produce disastrous results. Anyone who has had experience of war production, whether it be of shells, aeroplanes or Army equipment, knows very well that in theory you can conscript workers and give them a uniform, appeal to them to act as industrial soldiers under attack from the air and working in warlike conditions, but you cannot guarantee that conscripted they will give you output. When my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) was dealing with an aspect of this question, I thought that perhaps we were prone to forget that output is the cardinal factor upon which this should be approached and decided. Last September the workers were told that they had to get the fighters into the air. There were no ideal conditions—and this also touches on the question of overtime—and I pay my tribute to the British workmen, because they were prepared to work all the hours of the day and the night to put those fighters in the air. Suppose to-day there is an overwhelming desire in the country for offensive bomber attacks. It will therefore be necessary to appeal to that section of the industry which has the materials, machine tools and concentrated productivity to work day and night to produce bombers so that we can have an abundance of those machines to take the offensive. I therefore say that these questions cannot be approached on any idealistic or peace-time basis. They have to be dealt with not in a situation as you would like it, but as you find it, subject to the changes of war.
Several hon. Members in the course of this Debate have drawn the Minister's attention to questions such as absenteeism or staying put—the workers staying put in the factory and not leaving bombed areas —and I would like to add my emphasis to any appeal which the right hon. Gentleman makes to the workers of this country —if that method of an appeal is chosen, rather that complete enforcement of the


Order—to stay put. They may be a vital factor on a production belt. As the hon. Member for Ipswich said, loss of time on that kind of work might endanger production for months. I do not complain about high wages. That is another matter, which would take a long time to debate. But my right hon. Friend might appeal to workers, if they are not to be conscripted and put into an industrial uniform, to stick to their jobs.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are doing so.

Mr. Granville: I am dealing with the criticism, which has been made by several hon. Members, of a tendency for some men to leave bombed areas, or to indulge in absenteeism. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour himself referred to this question recently in this House. It is important that workers should realise that there is no more freedom to leave industry, to work where they will, and to compete for bonuses and high wages; but if you are to make this appeal, you must have uniform wages and bonuses. I know there are many difficulties, but if the temptation is to betaken away from the workers to go to the next factory, in order to get bigger bonuses or rates of pay, the right hon. Gentleman must exercise his powers to make uniform rates throughout the war industries. When the Minister goes around the country, making his hotting-up speeches, appealing for greater output and greater sacrifices, I hope that he will remember that there is a management side of the industry as well. The Minister of Labour is the Chairman of the Production Executive Committee, which is delegated to deal with all the problems of production. Although the Prime Minister defined his powers on 22nd January I am certain that it is true that the right hon. Gentleman has a great appeal to the trade unionists and other workers of this country, but I would ask him not to forget the management side. He is not responsible for production in all its aspects. But he cannot make speeches, asking for great output from the workers, without extending his appeal and to take in the management as well.
The hon. Member for Duddeston said that he did not speak as representing the employers, and an hon. Member on the Labour benches said that he was not dealing with the point of view of trade unionism. There is an overwhelming desire for

unity in this country in working out the great problems of the future. The management side of industry come into this question, because they are responsible for the final results. I believe that we shall get the maximum production, that we shall get the best use of organised labour in this country, that we shall be able to supply that equipment which is vitally necessary if we are to achieve a speedy victory, if we appeal to the whole of industry to work together on a kind of "victory industrial plan." If this appeal is made to the workers and those who represent the management of industry, I believe they will give us that equipment which will enable us to defeat Nazism.

Mr. Naylor: I have listened with very great pleasure to the speech made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). I could not help feeling that he based one or two general criticisms of workmen upon cases which were merely individual. We can all agree with the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) that the immediate need in the industry is the maximum production and the introduction and maintenance of methods of production that give the best results. I was surprised that it should be said that certain men were not doing all they might, and that when the whistle went in the evening men walked out satisfied with their day's work, leaving the machines idle. [Interruption.] I understood the hon. Member to mean that when the time came for ceasing work the men were not prepared to work overtime. I do not know whether the hon. Member will agree that that is the correct deduction. Another hon. Member contradicted that suggestion, which seems to add point to my criticism that it is unfair to cite certain instances as necessarily reflecting the general position throughout industry. With regard to restriction of output, we have no evidence that it has occurred, except perhaps the operation of certain trade union rights that may be a hindrance to the dilution of labour. I have had some experience of trade union action. I remember that in 1918 we were asked to allow women to come in and to forgo some of our rights relating to production, and we were told that when the war was over all the customs of the trade would be restored, but they were not restored in all instances. It was only the strength of the trade unions in certain industries that made it possible to get


back to the normal condition of production as required by the trade unions. Can one wonder then why we are not too keen as trade unionists to forgo those rules. which, in the main, are intended for the protection of our members?
I agree that at a time like this we ought to strive for unity and to get the trade-union rules relaxed to such an extent as to make a maximum production possible, and we also want the managements to bring themselves up to date in regard to methods of production. When we speak about refusing overtime⁁by the way, I have found very few men in my industry who were not willing, and they found it necessary, very often, to earn the necessary money that overtime brought them— why does not the criticism extend to the management of a firm, in order that it might provide means to offset the very natural inclination of men to want to go home when the day's work is done? We know that there is a war on. These men know that there is a great deal that depends upon their labour, but a great statesman in this Chamber once said that there was a limit to human endurance. It is a question of the proportion of sacrifice to which a man working at the bench or in any other place should be called upon to submit. These are considerations which are sometimes overlooked in a debate of this kind. We do not want the reputation of the British workman sullied in any way at a time like this, and I agree with the hon. Member who preceded me that, while we do not like the idea of conscription being placed upon British labour—and a few years ago not one of us here would have agreed to anything in the nature of conscription for any purpose whatever—in the day of national emergency, we can do no more than join in every effort which aims at the defence of the interests of the men and women of this country.
Therefore, we say to the Minister of Labour that we are behind him in this effort to make the best of the man-power and woman-power in this country. We are quite confident that his experience will not lead him to ask us for more than he has a right to expect. We believe that the methods that have been outlined in respect of man-power in this country are absolutely necessary, and nothing surprised me more than listening to the hon.

Member who spoke below the Gangway a few moments ago as to why all this manpower is wanted. Can anyone who approaches in a practical way the position in which this country is placed to-day doubt why all this production is required. The answer, of course, is the fact that we are at war, and we have to produce these things if we are to win the war. The best way to win the war, I agree, is to get the nation united in an effort of common sacrifice, not the sacrifice of one section on one side or on the other, but equal sacrifice among all classes and among all men and women who are engaged in the work of production.

Mr. Higgs: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for introducing this Debate. I would, first, like to express my appreciation of his contribution and the forceful manner in which he delivered it. I believe that if we had more speeches of that description it would contribute greatly to the efficiency of British industry. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is due to the demand for labour and material exceeding the supply. We are trying many devices to overcome that difficulty. We are bringing more women and elderly people into industry, the hours of labour are being extended, and experimented with, labour is being moved from one district to another, and we are endeavouring to train unskilled workers. There are many other items as well, but I will refer for a moment to the question of women.
This problem was debated in this House at some length a week or so ago. It is the only large reservoir of labour that is left, and I congratulate the Minister on the compulsory registration of women between 20 and 21. It has already had its effect. Women are coming into industry to-day quicker than they have done since war was declared. They are anxious to be able to choose their jobs rather than being put into them, and I hope that the Minister will continue issuing orders of that description. Women are capable in industry, and in a lot of industries they have been employed for a considerable time, in the electrical industry in particular, and that is heavy engineering. We are used to seeing them working on certain operations that are suitable, and, therefore, we do not find it difficult to extend their usefulness in time of war. If one


industry can do it effectively, then another can.
The outlook of a woman is different from that of a man and her physical strength is limited, but, with these exceptions, they can practically perform all the operations that men can perform. The Government perhaps are not as discreet at times in selecting occupations for women. I came across a case the other day where a woman was out on a railway dray with a man delivering goods. The object of the second man on these occasions is to help to move the goods on and off the lorry. The result is that the driver is confined to driving his lorry. The woman is there as the second person, and the receiver of the goods has to unload them. I could cite several cases of a similar nature. I would also remind the Minister that, in connection with the voluntary registration of women, he might consider that domestic servants are necessary. Their numbers may be considerably reduced, but there are many cases where the woman of the house is doing voluntary work, and if the domestic labour is taken there will be no gain because the woman of the house would have to discontinue her voluntary work.

Mrs. Tate: And work in the hospitals.

Mr. Higgs: I expect there are many other instances as well. I am certain that in regard to the hours of labour to which many hon. Members have referred, the Government made a great mistake nearly 12 months ago in forcing the hours too high. I consider that a normal working week, under normal conditions which are satisfactory to a man and a woman, should be something in the order of 47 hours. It could be extended to 54 hours, but beyond that the gain is not great. The average worker who gets time and a quarter or time and a half, as the case may be, may be prepared to be at his job but I do not consider that he is producing efficiently. I think it was Napoleon who found out that an Army marched on its stomach. It is just as important that the industrial worker should have his rest because he is doing as much as a man in the Army. When this state of affairs alters, inasmuch as the Army have to take a definite share in defending the country, then we may alter the conditions in their favour again.
The soldier cannot fight every hour of the day; neither can the worker work every hour of the day. The worker wants to work eight or nine hours a day, with one hour for meals and may be two hours for travel. He wants his rest and with that rest he will be far more efficient.
Following on this forcing of labour I have been making some investigations at one of the factories in the district in which I am interested. I came across a case of Government inspectors working at night —and here I may say that I do not contribute to the idea of 100 per cent. night shifts. I prefer two day shifts when possible. As an example of the inefficiency which occurs at night a works manager went into the factory where 14 inspectors were employed. On the Monday night their normal hours were 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., with a break of 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. On this night the break lasted from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. and from 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. all the men were reading. On Tuesday the break lasted for two hours instead of one hour and on the Thursday three-quarters of an hour after starting time no work was being done. Hon. Members who have worked at nights know exactly what goes on. There is not that efficiency of production which we get in the daytime, although even this is not too efficient. So I say I do not support unnecessary night shifts. Industry is in a deplorable state through bad time-keeping. Before the war started it was normal to lock out employés if they were not there to time. It cannot be done to-day and it is not being done. People who are supposed to get to work at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning get there at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock and no effort is being made by the Government to assist manufacturers to keep better time. We have to remember that in industry departments depend upon one another and that when certain machine tools are not running during the first hour of the working day, the whole factory may not be producing efficiently for the first two hours. The Minister of Labour ought to enforce workers to attend better and be more punctual.
In regard to the movement of labour some of this is necessary, as I think we all agree, but I have come across cases of young men who have been moved to different parts of the country and have no sooner settled on their job than they have been called up for military service. What


sense is there in spending money in moving people about if they cannot remain on the job to which they have been moved? Women and children have been moved from vulnerable areas for safety's sake and then the Government have moved men and their wives and families back into those areas. The argument has been that the men will not stay there without their wives and families. But men have to stay in the Army and they are not paid as well as industrial workers. It is problems of this description that are contributing to inefficiency, and I hope the Minister will take note of some of these things. It seems as though spending money does not matter; that if we win the war it does not matter how much we pay for it. But this might be our downfall even before the war is finished, as well as after. If we can get 50 per cent. more output for the same amount of money it is our duty to do it. The shifting of people about from place to place will not win the war.
I would prohibit the general public from travelling during certain hours when munitions workers have to travel in congested areas. Thousands of pounds are being spent on placards which ask people not to travel between 4 and 6 p.m. I say, do not let them travel. That is the way to deal with this matter. We are at war and we must win it, and the sooner we take a stand the sooner we shall be at peace and have our freedom. People are not supposed to leave their jobs without permission, under certain conditions, of their employer. Is the Minister aware that I can state cases of people who have left their jobs for others and their insurance cards have stayed with their original firms for eight months? Duplicate cards are issued. That is the way the difficulty is being overcome, and if what I say is doubted I can give concrete examples. There seems to be no effort at all to stop this movement.
Labour turnover is altogether too high. In the majority of munitions factories it is about 100 per cent. whereas before the war it was about 25 per cent. Every time a man leaves a new man has to be taught and more money is lost. Efficiency in production is not high enough; we want output at a price. There are others who wish to speak and I will refer only to one other matter—the training of labour. Some engineering firms before

the last war developed the training of labour to a fine art and did it very efficiently. They did the job themselves and knew how to train labour. Now, to a great extent we have Government training departments and with all due respect to their instructors they do not know the job like the man who has to make the goods. Those training departments have cost money and have had to have plant and buildings supplied. I contend that if the training was done in the particular industry in which the people are to be employed, it would be far more efficient. They could utilise existing charge hands, existing tools, setters-up, and so forth, and what is more, they would be learning on the job in which they are to work. There is no argument about it. I shall never be convinced that training at a training centre is nearly as efficient as training at the factory where the individual is to be employed.
Dilution is essential, and there has to be a great deal more of it. It is difficult for manufacturers to see how it can be done, but with additional women it will be one of the factors that will give us a far greater output. It is not plant that we want; it is personnel. We have enough machinery; machinery is lying idle all over the country, and yet more is being made. It is labour that we want, and there must be dilution if we are to get it. I should like finally to ask the Minister of Labour, when he replies, to tell me to what extent he has been able to bring dilution into the sheet-metal industry. That is a very important industry in the production of aircraft, and I am under the impression that very little has been done and very little is being attempted at the present time. I consider that this is one of the vital problems that the Minister should look into.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: There are one or two points I should like to put forward for the consideration of those Members who are not intimately concerned in industry, and who, no doubt, wish to take a rather wider and more general view of the subject than those others who are actively engaged in industry in one form or another. Surely, the fundamental trouble at the present time is not that there is a shortage of labour, but, as the terms of the Amendment rather imply, that the proper use is not being made of the labour which is


available. I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will not think I am making an attack upon them, for I am not; but the fact remains that the rate of production, particularly in the engineering industry, at the present time leaves a very great deal to be desired. My own works, where I employ an unusually high class of labour, even for the engineering trade, unfortunately seem to show that the effort which is being expended is not up to what I regard as normal in peace time. Some inquiries which I have made locally from other works in my own industry have convinced me that my own works are still maintaining a margin of production above what is customary in the district.
Although I am masquerading at the moment as a sailor, I have hitherto been a soldier, and the first thing that was inculcated in me in the Army, when first I joined the Army in the latter part of the reign of Queen Victoria, was that if the men failed, it was the fault of the officers. There were occasions in the Boer War when I learned that lesson from experience. The same principle applies in industry. If we find that our men are not really putting a proper effort into their work—and I am sorry to say they certainly are not at the present moment —we must look to see whether there is some fault on the part of the employers which would account for that state of affairs. The House will remember that from time to time during the two years before the war, and in the earlier part of the war, I put forward practical proposals for dealing with the question of labour during a national emergency, pointing out that the most important thing of all was to convince the weekly wage-earner that somebody else was not getting away with it, and that any extra effort on his part would not necessarily lead to his employer getting a totally exorbitant reward.
We found in the last war, that one of the chief troubles in dealing with labour in the munition industries was the fact that, undoubtedly, large numbers of people were making gigantic fortunes out of their country's troubles. If anyone puts that point of view forward to-day, the Government at once point out that there is an Excess Profits Tax which takes 100 per cent. of any extra profits made. But that tax is exactly like the Excess Profits Duty of the last war, which we always used to say was never

paid except by honest people. The means of evading the Excess Profits Tax are obvious to anyone who has had experience in industry. It is just ridiculous to suppose that one cannot evade it, if one wishes to do so. I could show any hon. Member how it can be evaded.
In actual fact what is done is this— indeed it is encouraged by the form of contract which some Government Departments put out. One simply employs one's poor relations at exorbitant salaries, and adds more and more to the salaries of the staff and to expenses, and buys more Rolls-Royces "on the firm," and generally runs up the standing charges until they absorb all the excess profits there are. My own particular method, which is probably illegal, is, that being a member of the Fleet Air Arm and producing at my works something which it requires, if I find I am making more profit than is necessary, which would be taxable, I simply let the Fleet Air Arm have the stuff they want without charge. That is a perfectly simple method of avoiding the tax.
I want the House to consider for a moment the fact that we have to convince the ordinary wage-earner that, first of all, some other person is not getting away with it. The Excess Profits Tax of 100 per cent. does not convince the worker because he sees his employer getting away with it. He sees the local drunkard, or the village idiot, setting up as a subsidiary to an aircraft manufacturer. He sees that man suddenly becoming an engineer in spite of the fact that he has had no previous experience, and he sees the Government providing the money for the works and filling the works with the necessary apparatus. Then, when he has broken down as a manufacturer, I have to come to his help and do the job for him. Undoubtedly that sort of thing knocks the whole morale of our workers on the head.
The worker will do his best if he knows that someone else is not getting away with it. My experience is that if he finds his fellow-workman benefiting he dislikes it extremely. Still more does he resent his employer getting away with it. The only way of preventing what is happening is by adopting the method which I have been using experimentally for the last 15 years in competitive industry. It works particularly well, and there is not the


slightest difficulty in applying it to all manufacturers engaged on Government work. It is based upon the principle that profit is a crime if it is earned out of the agony of the country, such as the profits which are being earned at the present time in the munition industry.
The scheme is that you do not allow the public to hold ordinary shares for the period of the emergency. Instead, the shares are held by Government trustees. In the case of each firm the beneficiaries are the people employed. I need not give the House any further details, except to say that I have worked it out and have applied the scheme successfully for 15 years. It removes the fear of the ordinary worker that somebody, for whom he has no respect or regard, is benefiting as a result of a national necessity.
As the Minister of Labour is here, I should like to put this point to him. Enormous harm has been done to the whole labour situation by some of the speeches of Ministers of the Crown during the last nine months or so. The ordinary Englishman or Scotsman amongst the workers loathes being praised when he knows that he does not deserve it. Nothing makes him more annoyed. The men who have been dashing to the air-raid shelters as soon as the siren went hear that these lads in the Air Force and the Navy are not the heroes of the war, that their sacrifice is nothing, that the workers in the aircraft factories are the heroes and theirs is the sacrifice—those noble fellows! That sort of thing has done an enormous amount of harm, and I hope Ministers of the Crown will stop that sort of nonsense, cant and humbug, as it is. The sacrifice of the man who works on Sunday for double wages and overtime for time-and-a-quarter or time-and-a-half, compared with the sacrifice of some of the men in the Air Force! Let us have, an end to that sort of nonsense. I would also request the Minister of Labour to make a little more study of labour conditions and the principles upon which work is based. One of our chief troubles has been that ridiculous performance of his last summer. How on earth anyone pretending to know anything about work could have suggested the hours that were practically forced upon us at that time I do not know.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Minister of Labour did not do that. It was the Minister of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is innocent and that it was the Minister of Aircraft Production who perpetrated that folly, but a Minister of Labour is not of much use if he cannot stop another Minister interfering with labour to the extent of which I have spoken. Our principal trouble at present is that tempers are bad; men are not doing the work they might do, they are disgruntled, unhappy and discontented, and it is largely due to a number of factors all coinciding. One is the silly speeches of Ministers and another is the black-out, which means that a lot of men have been working in artificial light for months on end and, unless one disobeys the rules laid down, that will continue all the summer. Another thing is this, and it is particularly bad in the North of England. Wages on the whole, everyone must admit, are grossly inflated and yet the man who, for doing next to nothing in an aircraft factory, draws £9 a week, when he goes to spend it, finds that he cannot buy anything. [Interruption.] Within a radius of five miles of my own works there are scores of men drawing that, and doing extraordinarily little work for it too. All this pretence that trade union rates are observed in aircraft factories has been a farce ever since they began with guaranteed bonuses of 100 per cent, on trade union rates. The hon. Member who has just interrupted me knows works within 30 miles of his own constituency where there is a guaranteed bonus of 100 per cent., to start with, apart from overtime on Sundays. The fact is that when peeple have lots of money and find that they cannot buy anything, not even enough food, they get their backs up. With one thing added to another, things are in a bad way. To my mind they have reached such a pitch that we have to deal with it by drastic methods. It is no use trying to patch up the present system. It has gone too far. We shall have to have some sort of organisation of industry, something more or less on the lines I have suggested, before we can get that real effort in the national interest which is essential.

Mr. E. Bevin: I hoped when this Debate was instituted to-day that, as Minister of


Labour, I would receive from the House some constructive suggestions for the improvement of the policy which I put before the House only a few weeks ago. The policy which I then submitted is being worked out in great detail and, I believe, with the approval of industry on both sides. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) in introducing the Amendment was really a condemnation of private enterprise in peace-time and a demonstration that private enterprise is incapable of adapting itself to meet the needs of the nation in a crisis. He said in effect to the State, "You must keep your hands off industry; it is not your business. We, the industrialists, are the people who know how to manage business." I suggest that no institution can claim the right to perpetuation unless it can survive and serve the State in its most acute crises. That is the great test to apply. I make that statement generally and do not apply it to one side more than another. Immediately a crisis comes, what do the great industrialists do? They run to the civil servant —the very man who is condemned by the great industrialists; they go to the man to whom they have denied the correct training because they say it is not the State's business. They ask the great State Departments— [Interruption.] You deny the State the right to interfere in industry in peace-time and say that it is the prerogative of the management. Surely that has been the claim made in this House for a long time, and that has been the opposition set up to my political philosophy. You have voted on it dozens of times. Immediately the State gets into war or in a situation of that character, then, in order to meet that crisis, you have to call upon State institutions to bring you together, to organise you and to take control, and you have to put men in charge to whom you have denied the right training in peace-time to cope with such a situation.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Nonsense.

Mr. Kirkwood: Rap them over the knuckles.

Mr. Bevin: I am not going to rap anybody over the knuckles. I am stating a fact.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman states that he is going to state a

fact. May I state this to him? Had it not been for Government interference with private industry at this time, private industry would be supplying the Defence Services with a far greater quantity of material than they are doing.

Mr. Bevin: I did not in making that statement intend to be controversial. I have stated a fact. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) referred to Ministers' speeches, and I suggest he has not a single quotation to support what he suggested. It was just a flight of rhetoric and fancy. I listened to him with complete patience. I always say that if I am willing to take my medicine, hon. Members should be willing to take theirs. The second point has relation to what happens in the factory. The Minister of Labour is charged with the crime of not making people do the right thing in the factories. Let me remind the House that the Minister of Labour only supplies the labour, and that it passes entirely out of his hands when it goes into the factory. It passes then under the prerogative of management. That is its place. In fact, there has been a claim from every branch of industry that the Minister of Labour, except as regards diluting and upgrading and examination, should not interfere. No one in industry will deny that fact. Then you cannot hold the Minister of Labour responsible if something is wrong in the management. Management is not the Ministry of Labour's function, and we have never attempted to undertake it, though I confess that sometimes when looking into things I have felt, without any egotism, that I could reasonably improve on them.
But let me turn to the question of the turnover of labour. Some hon. Member, I do not remember who it was, said that industry relies upon the power of dismissal to maintain discipline. What does that mean? It means that there is an economic drive on the workman to work, the ability to force your will on another by the imposition of starvation, which inculcates fear and resentment in the other man's mind. By relying on that you do not get the right kind of discipline. Recently I met the whole of the Clyde shipbuilders— it was on a Sunday, and in view of the recent vote in this House I hope I may be forgiven—and what was their cry? They said, "You, the Minister of Labour, must undertake discipline." I said,


"Why?" They replied, "We cannot." I said, "Why can't you?" They replied, "Because sacking is no good." That means that the basic condition upon which your system is run has been starvation or the ability to make another citizen unemployed. Well, that has meant war. In no industry in this country has there been more war than in shipbuilding over the last 20 years. The other day I appealed to, or directed, or whatever you like to call it, everybody who has been engaged in shipbuilding to register. In the first few days there were registered 49,000 persons, who had left or been driven out of that industry in the last 15 years. Happily, most of those men, after three or four years' unemployment, had found new jobs, some of them, I am glad to say, good jobs, secure jobs. Some are in business. I now have to take those men out of those secure jobs to go back to the shipyards. There were men from insurance companies, men employed by a university, and in all kinds of capacities, many of them in secure jobs and some with pension rights. I have to put them back into this industry, where they will help the nation. Some are going back with £2, £3, or £5 a week less than they are now getting in their permanent jobs. They have already responded' and are going back to help the nation. No word of praise has been given to them. These people say to me, "I have a weekly income. Am I to go back to the Tyne or the Clyde to-morrow morning to find that somebody has forgotten to send the materials, and then I shall have to go to the Employment Exchange? Am I to have no security?" We have no right to ask them to accept that position.
Secondly, industry says, "We cannot hold our labour force of essential workers." I have made an order which freezes labour to the job or the undertaking as long as there is work for them there.

Mr. Hopkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman enforce it?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly. It will be enforced, but it was put into operation only this week. Why did I do it? First of all, in order that labour might be immobilised. I have to deal with this war. This House in the past has allowed large industrialists to close down shipyard after shipyard. In

fighting the battle of the Atlantic to-day, the hindrance is not with men. You must get back the places in which to put the ships to repair them, in order to take the men back. We have a grave responsibility, in the struggle and crisis through which we are going now, because of the policy which this House allowed to be followed for 15 years, in driving the best skilled men out of the industry and, what was worse, driving out the facilities as well. People say to the Minister of Labour, "Make that position good in nine months," when the facilities are not there and the men have been driven into other employment. I ask hon. Members to be realists; it cannot be done. They would not respond themselves if I applied to individuals of this House in those conditions.
I have tried to get over the position by carrying the men with me. I know the British workman. I claim that I have done more to get a response to the national call in numbers, considering the numbers that have been called up for the Army—and not only a response to the national call, but to get the workers to the right places—than in any previous period either during the last war or prior to my taking office. When you meet in conference two parties who have been in this economic struggle, this bread-and-butter struggle, up to the war and after the outbreak of war, it is very difficult to overcome the feelings that exist. A little conciliation sometimes wins your way, in those circumstances, better than the big stick.
There seems to be an assumption that, when the House carried these Orders and directed me to implement them, the function I had to perform was not to get willing service but virtually to use the Orders in some conscriptive method in order to make a nation of industrial slaves.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is what they want you to do.

Mr. Bevin: I am told that I ought not to make these appeals and not to persuade people, but to order them. Every decent manager in this country knows that if you overdo the ordering business, you get a reaction and disaster; that is not the way to get output. Therefore, I decided to interpret these Orders in a perfectly reasonable manner. If it is ever


decided to tell in detail the story of what has been accomplished under these Orders, I think it would stagger the country and the House.
Let me deal with the women's side of the question. Before I come to that point in detail, however, let me say that one of my great troubles in getting women into industry is that of management. I have issued—and it is now being sent to every works in the country—a manual of advice on how to grapple with this women's problem. In hundreds of works where we have had to send women there has been no reception for them and nobody to meet them. Let me give a case in point which came to my hands to-day. Fifty women responded to the appeal that I made at Newcastle. They left their job sand went into a works. In a fortnight they were sacked, and their original jobs were gone as well as the jobs which they had newly taken. Nobody cared. Now I have to intervene and try to put it right. Take another case where men have been bombed twice in one works. An hon. Member brought this case to me to-day. Only last night 60 men turned up at 7 o'clock to work all night, and brought their own food; there was no material, and they were sacked and sent home. How can you expect response when you get management like that? I can multiply that into a great number of cases in which I am constantly intervening, and, if I may say so, one of the most difficult places is the great Birmingham area, where they have given very little study to the problem of welfare and management of the people.
Take the vexed problem of drop forgings. The industry has done nothing for itself. My hon. Friend knows that in the aircraft industry special training was established and that special payments were arranged. Efforts were made to get men to come to the steel trade, at a great sacrifice of wages, to go and learn the business in order to make good the personnel in drop forgings. In that great Midland district they allowed that state of affairs to go on, and they have not even rationalised it according to the demands of the industry. Labour is not the only factory in this question. The industry was chaotic. Therefore, when I am told to get the proper use of labour I have to get the proper conditions under which labour can be used, if our purpose

is to be accomplished. Reference has been made to my speech at Bristol, where I said that it was possible to obtain an increase of 30 per cent, in output. What did I say? Why not quote me completely? My complete statement—and it has appeared in the Press, was this: I referred to the public authority which was responsible for the dock management, the ship-owner, the ship management, and shipbuilder or repairer, and the men, and I said that by a combined effort of all these factors an increase in output of 30 per cent, was possible. I did not only say the men. The men cannot do it if all the other factors are not there.

Mr. Simmonds: I did not say the man. I said that the organisation which my right hon. Friend has tolerated would allow 30 per cent, more to be done without much effort.

Mr. Bevin: Boilermakers are paid by results, and the Boilermakers' Society has never been accused of not giving a good output.

Mr. Simmonds: When I say organisation I mean the whole organisation of this part of the industry. I am not speaking of the trade union movement at all.

Mr. Bevin: The Boilermakers' Society was referred to in the hon. Member's speech. He followed it up by saying what a condemnation of the Minister of Labour it was when he said that a 30 per cent, increase was possible. Then he linked that up with the questions of output and overtime. I say to the House that an increase is just as capable of achievement as it was in the docks. I knew what output could be got from the docks. I went to the Liverpool Docks myself; it was a wet day like to-day, and there were complaints that the men would not work overtime. The men had been carrying quarters of beef. There was no canteen, there was no food, there was nothing. Cannot the employers realise that the men are as human as they are, that they have feelings and the same right to proper treatment? I say that proper treatment should be given. Then we have heard these complaints regarding shipbuilding. I have been in office nine months; I have had to issue orders for canteens to be put in the shipyards on the Tyne. The hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) has been pressing hard week after week. I have sent inspectors, but it was


not until the "Blitz" took place on the Clyde that I was able to get them to get a move on, and the canteens are not there yet. The argument against it was that it was a Ministry of Labour fad and would not be necessary after the war. I am not responsible for the operation of the industry, but when I am attacked for these defects, you must allow me to say in return that it was not I who took that line. Is it not strange that in the majority of industries which had highly developed Joint Industrial Councils, the modern industries in which these things had been introduced prior to the war, the industries which had all kinds of relationships with the trade union movement arising out of the Whitley Committees, there should have been the least trouble since the war began, both internally and in everything else?
The Essential Work Order is designed to accomplish three or four purposes. As the man-power position became more difficult, I came to the conclusion that one of the best ways to deal with it and to stop the turnover of labour was to get the industries sorted out. In view of the urgency of the question, I began with-shipbuilding. I found out how many men could be employed, assuming that the yards were fully used and that there was full material available. I am happy to say that the bulk of those men have been supplied. As the transfer of skilled men takes place, the number will be completed. But if there is a lack of yard space, lack of docks, that is not my responsibility. I cannot put men where there is nothing for them to do. Then I applied the Essential Work Order. That holds the man to his job. It is suggested that, notwithstanding the fact that you tie a man to his job, the employer should have the right to discharge him. I am not going to introduce the old leaving certificate system, if that is what is asked for. If the State says to a man that he must not move from one employment to another, surely the right of the employer to discharge him must be taken away. If he is put there by the State, he must be released only by the State, and when he is released the State, knowing where else he is wanted, must transfer him to that essential work. I am trying to grapple with the tremendous problem of the building industry. It is a vexed

problem, which it is very hard to overcome. There, again, I have had to deal with casual labour.
Then I proceeded to deal with the docks. I began with a great experiment in Liverpool and the Merseyside generally—an experiment which, I believe, will not only help to win the war, but will be of great social benefit to that area afterwards. The effect of that is that you do not pick a man up and drop him again every day, or every half-day, but you utilise him over the whole of that great area. Already, I am advised by the Ministry of Transport, there is a marked improvement in output. As the scheme progresses, there will be further benefit. The scheme is intended to apply to Glasgow, and then we shall adapt it for elsewhere. On the engineering side and the aircraft side, we are told, there is great waste. I join with hon. Members there. One of my greatest worries has been the amount of idle time in factories. The men have been disgusted with it. There is only one way to keep up output. That is not by driving, but by keeping the rhythm and the timing and the flow of material. A lot of factories have been affected. I am not accusing this, that, or the other person; but it is a source of worry. There is another big factor in the case of the great aircraft factories. Types are changing constantly. As they get into a rhythm on one type of production, they get pulled up for an entirely new design or invention. Then they go back again. In general engineering work, which is more varied, the rhythm does not break down so much as in a segregated industry like the aircraft industry. Then there have been tremendous difficulties over machine tools and the effect of sinkings, and all sorts of other things which have interfered with production. But my effort has been to do all I can, when I have discovered that production has been checked, to move the men where they will be more efficient, or to get the production Departments to get a move on.
I have been asked what is the response to the appeal to the women, and what I propose to do? I hope I shall not be pressed for figures. They are very good, and they are daily improving. But I did not, in that speech at Newcastle, put in an appeal for the enlistment of women as a substitute for registration, as it has been called. What I said in that speech, and


what I think was quite clear, was that it was proposed to register women in age groups, but in the meantime they should not wait for registration. There were urgent vacancies that I wanted to fill. Those were perfectly sound methods, I would have thought. If I had created a psychology that nothing need happen until the registration was completed, then I would have held up production considerably, but during all these weeks, as they are going on, we are filling up vacancies and helping to fill the armament factories and all the other working places. But there is very great difficulty. Housing accommodation is not easy, and transport is often a terrible problem. The factories were built but somebody forgot to provide places in which the workers could live near to the factories, and I have not had a chance to remedy that disaster in nine months. You can do lots of things in nine months, but you cannot remedy everything. In some cases there are working places which involve travelling of an hour or two or three hours a day, and it is difficult to meet that position. My Department, with the Production Departments, have introduced now the three-shift system which has got rid of the long day. We have introduced methods of feeding which facilitate matters, and workers are given hot food when they arrive in the morning at the beginning of the shift. I am glad to say that under the three-shift system wastage has gone down by 30 or 40 per cent, and each week the reduction of wastage continues.
We come now to the registration of women of 20 and 21. I was asked what was war work? I will give a general answer. Anything that is essential to the life of the community in the prosecution of the war, and only that which is essential. It may be that distribution has a claim and that the girl behind the counter who is efficient and can handle customers properly may be making a great contribution to the morale of the country. The handling of customers' food in proper distribution is a very vital thing in order to keep up morale. I do not want managers grabbing people for war work and probably demoralising whole industry. Therefore I propose as far as possible to fill up these factories by making use of people released from the concentrated industries, others who are in non-essential occupations, and people who do nothing

at all and would not normally do anything, and to direct them to these places of employment. I cannot find a more ordered system than that. I am asked why I have not done it before. The short answer is that the factories were not ready into which to put them, and what in the world was the use of going on with all this machinery of registration, creating hopes in the people's minds, and then not being able to put them anywhere? That would have been a perfectly ridiculous suggestion. I had to time the thing, and I have timed it in conjunction with the Production Departments, according to the availability of factory space and the growth of housing accommodation. I cannot think that this House can expect a more organised and definite plan than that. When I pass in these people the responsibility is on the management and production departments, and nobody will be happier than I if management can be improved.
As there is a Bill, in which there is an element of compulsion, to be discussed later, and as the House is in a compulsory mood, I will make only two further points. One which concerns me very much, and to which I have referred already, is the development of the efficiency of welfare officers for the handling of women's problems. We have introduced a training scheme for welfare officers, and there has been a good response. Indeed, we are turning out some efficient welfare workers, and industry should regard them as just as important as their engineering and technical staffs. One thing which troubles me very much, and which I am now considering is this: I find that on the managerial side there is a great shortage of charge hands and works managers, and that there are little or no facilities for training them. As industry has developed all kinds of people were obtained and put in charge. I am now considering the possibility of creating a scheme by means of which I can give a month or six weeks' intensive course for those desirous of being charge hands and of taking other positions on the managerial side, and I hope I shall get a good response from industry. By releasing men for this course they will undoubtedly repay themselves a hundredfold afterwards. It is often said that one of the troubles in industry is that a good man never gets promotion, and I suppose


that is why I became a Cabinet Minister. So often a man is good at his trade —

Mr. Kirkwood: Invariably he is a "Left Winger," and that is why he does not get promotion.

Mr. Bevin: I am always in favour of making "Left Wingers" foremen. I would enter only one caveat. Every democratic "Left Winger" becomes such a tyrant as a foreman that people are afraid of him. However, I am extremely anxious that this training scheme should be established, because at the moment there is no opportunity for teaching the psychology of industry or the technique of welfare to men connected with the right handling of people in the workshops. So much depends on avoiding disputes and the difficulties which occur on the managerial side. Another great weakness is this: Conferences take place, at which wage conditions, dilution and all the rest of it are settled, and then the greatest handicap which I find is that the employers go away from the conference and send a circular to their members, but that there is very little attempt to carry the spirit and atmosphere of the conference room right down to the foremen, so that they understand what their principals have agreed to. I assure hon. Members that that is a tremendous weakness. If the shop steward gets his advice from the union as to the attitude he is to take up, it is essential that the manager and the foreman should have equal knowledge in order that they may all meet together on common terms. That is a common sense thing to do. There is not time for me to deal with the whole programme of the Ministry of Labour, but I hope I have said enough to convert all members of the coalition on my right to my political philosophy, and all my friends on my left to increased production.

Mr. Simmonds: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question to which I directed his attention particularly in my speech? I asked whether he could give us assurances that all men and women, and particularly those of no occupation, whom he directs to come into industry will be under as firm and definite an obligation to fulfil that duty as anybody he calls up for the Armed Forces?

Mr. Bevin: The Order will be carried out, but it must be remembered that the Order I have to apply is not military conscription. If the hon. Member asks me whether I shall apply the same Order as is applied to soldiers, obviously the answer is "No."

Mr. Simmonds: If those people do not elect to go into that industry, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow them to stay away?

Mr. Bevin: No.

Mr. Simmonds: That is what we want to know.

Mr. Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, under the new Regulations, if a man, without notice or with notice, throws up his job on urgent aircraft work in one works in order to go down the street and get a job at another works, he will take all steps to deal seriously with the matter?

Mr. Bevin: Under the Order a man will not be able to do that. As to the steps I have taken, there is a case sub judice, and therefore, I cannot say very much about it. I am at the moment prosecuting employers for taking the men on. That, I think, is one of the best remedies.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman prosecute men for disobeying the law?

Mr. Bevin: Some of them have already been prosecuted.

Mr. Hopkinson: If I bring cases, will proceedings be taken at once?

Mr. Simmonds: In accordance with precedent, but for no other reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

CLASS I.

House of commons.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £321,700,.be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum


necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee."—[Note."—£155,000 has been voted on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again" [Mr. Munro], put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st April.]

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Enrolment notices.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out paragraph (a).
The Clause, as it stands, provides that where a person fails to comply with an enrolment notice he is liable on conviction, on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. I regard this penalty as far too severe. I have endeavoured to compare the penalty imposed for this offence with the penalties imposed for similar offences under the principal Act. Clause 16 of the principal Act provides that where a person is convicted of forgery for the purpose of evading military service, or gives false information for the purpose of evading service, he is liable lo imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding —50. That is a very much smaller penalty than that provided for failing to comply with an enrolment notice, which, in my submission, is a less serious offence. It occurs to me that those who have drafted this Measure have not been consistent right through, and I see that the right hon. Gentleman partly agrees with me, in that he has a later Amendment on the Order Paper which is designed to reduce the penalty. However, I do not think he is reducing it sufficiently, and it still does not meet my point, because the penalties for various offences in this Measure and in the principal Act must be consistent, and there must not be more drastic and serious penalties imposed for lesser offences. If the Amendment was accepted, it would mean that the punishment on summary conviction

would be reduced from 12 months to three months, and if the second Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name was also accepted, the fine also would be reduced. It only makes this Measure consistent with the principal Act, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accepting it, because I am satisfied that in so doing he would improve this Bill.

Mr. Messer: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I consider this is a point of some substance. Some of the people who may come under this penalty may in no other circumstances be found guilty of an indictable offence. It appears to me that this offence is hardly the sort of thing which should be indictable. I think it is a type of case which ought to be referred to a court of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Maxton: We associate ourselves with the Amendment which has been moved, the purpose of which is to make the penalty much more moderate. I hope the Minister will accept it, because it is a shocking thing to give a man two years' imprisonment for failing to appear at a particular office and hand in his name at a particular time.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): We have considered this matter, and, as the Committee will have noted, I have put down two Amendments on the Order Paper. You cannot reconcile this Measure with the principal Act, because in the latter case the man concerned goes into the Army. For volunteers who leave there is a penalty of three months or a fine of £100. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is talking of a different offence. I am talking of offences as they are under the Ministry of Home Security. We have to keep in mind the kind of scale which now operates in the Civil Defence services, but I cannot harmonise everything. I tried to make it six months and 12 months, leaving the penalties as originally proposed. I cannot go any further.

Mr. McGovern: I am rather amazed at the Minister's attitude in regard to Amendments on this matter. You are penalising men to the extent of probably six months. You may find judges, seeing that there is a maximum of 12 months, giving six months' imprisonment. It will depend on what they have had for breakfast and the


state of their stomachs. I could point to a large number of offences which are being committed and reported every day in the Press, and their effect on the community may be tremendous, but they are being penalised by a very small fine indeed. For example, an offence that is very often committed is carrying matches into a factory where there may be gunpowder. It might endanger hundreds of lives. I find one man being fined £5 after a second offence and another £ 10 or 28 days' imprisonment. Here the Minister proposes to impose penalties of that kind on conscientious objectors. The Minister and many Members, and the country, may think them misguided in refusing to accept the decision of the Act, but if they are to suffer penalties, they should be of short duration in terms of imprisonment and the fine as low as is consistent with civilised opinion and as the country is prepared to tolerate. I am sure that if the voice and the feelings of the country were taken, there is no enlightened opinion, I scarcely believe there is any extreme "diehard" opinion which would support what the Minister is proposing.
When we are continually declaiming against the attitude of the German Government and the dictators of the world, we should be showing a little more humanity in our own minds and hearts towards men who are likely to be penalised under this Bill. I ask the Minister seriously whether he is not prepared to make some decent gesture with regard to the penalties. The Committee stage on a Measure becomes a farce if we are not to get any form of concession to minority opinion. The Minister of Labour has stood out strongly to-day for his decision regarding the calling-up of people for the factories and has told Tory Members and "diehards" that more will be got by kindness and consideration than by repression. Once a man crosses the threshold of prison under this Bill he will not only be a lost soul so far as the country is concerned, but he will be embittered. I advise the Minister to remember that a large number of the people who are conscientious objectors and will be subject to these penalties are pupils of his own, of the Minister of Home Security and of members of the Labour movement who have taught them that war is immoral and that they should not

take part in it. I would urge the Minister to do what many Tory Ministers have done in the past and grant some concessions in regard to penalties.

Mr, Rhys Davies: I had an Amendment down to this Clause, and the Minister was good enough to accept it, for which I give him thanks. When dealing with this problem the Minister rather led us to believe that some of these cases will come to him in the end, but he will know that they will not come before him at all but before the benches of magistrates. A friend of mine who has stood at this Box hundreds of times as a Member and at the Box opposite as a Minister, was during the last war an absolute conscientious obector.

Mr. Bevin: I would point out that this Clause does not apply only to conscientious objectors, but to all persons who fail to enrol.

Mr. Maxton: To what other type of person does it apply? There may be the careless person, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that he should get two years for carelessness? Apart from the conscientious objector, who is there?

Mr. Bevin: On a later Amendment, I shall be able to show the hon. Member that there are others.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The Minister will know that the vast majority of those who will not register under this scheme will be conscientious objectors to being forced into Civil Defence. I have stood at this Box many times to oppose all manner of savage sentences under the law. They do no good and only embitter the people upon whom they fall. When I was interrupted I was referring to the late Morgan Jones. Consequent upon a decision of a bench of magistrates his teacher's certificate was taken from him; they sent him to two years' imprisonment. When he came out of gaol he could not get a job except as a labourer. When he came out of gaol he stood for the County Council against the justice of the peace who had sent him to prison, and he defeated him, and ultimately he came to Parliament to represent the constituency from which he had been sent to gaol. I feel, therefore, I am entitled to say something about these penalties. Benches of magistrates differ. One bench will be fair-minded and impose a penalty of a month


—the maximum is now to be 12 months — but other benches in rural districts may impose the full 12 months. We have to think not only of what happens to these men when you put them under lock and key but of society after the war. When these fellows come out of gaol and lake part in the public life of our land, I do not want to find any bitterness in their hearts. It was for that reason that I put down my Amendment, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for accepting 12 months instead of two years.

Mr. Silkin: I find myself in rather surprising company upon these Amendments, I recognise that there must be a penalty for people who do not obey the enrolment notice, but I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister not to make it an Indictable offence, with a penalty of two years' imprisonment as the maximum. If he will agree to that on paragraph (a) I will withdraw the Amendment on (b). That will mean that the man will be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 12 months, and I should think that will give my right hon. Friend all the control he wants. Why make it indictable? That is my case against (a).

Mr. Messer: May we have the view of the Solicitor-General upon this important point? Some of us are magistrates, and regard that' position with some degree of importance. We feel that in some instances we should be compelled to regard what these men are doing as comparable with committing a severe felony. Fancy sending a man for trial to the assizes or sessions, where he can get two years' imprisonment, for a thing like this. Incidently, the power to impose a sentence of 12 months at a court of summary jurisdiction is an advance. At the moment, save in some very special cases, we cannot go beyond a sentence of six months. I think a case has been made out for not making this an indictable offence.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the hon. Member opposite wise in asking that this should not be made an indictable offence? One of his complaints has been that a bench of magistrates once did something wrong, but if this is not an indictable offence, the accused person cannot be taken before a jury. He might want to

go before a jury, and that is a consideration to be borne in mind.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope the Minister is going to reply because —

Mr. Bevin: I was going to reply, and I was going to say that I could not change my mind on this point. I could have come to the Committee prepared to make a compromise on the six months, and have been a very generous man, but I do not like doing work in that way. I saw this Amendment, and I re-examined it. I met my hon. Friend's point, and I have tried to harmonise these penalties, as far as I can, with others in the Regulations at the present moment by reducing the penalty—leaving the monetary fine but making six months' imprisonment as a maximum, on summary conviction, 12 months on indictment. I think, taking the two proposals together, they impose much lighter penalties than are in existence for other kinds of offences. Supposing I agreed to the Amendment, and subsequently a man left a job, what would happen? He would be subject to a penalty of 12 months' imprisonment or a fine of £100. I am asked that the man who does not work at all should be liable only to a fine of £50 or a maximum of six months' imprisonment.

Mr. Silkin: Twelve months.

Mr. Bevin: I am talking about a case of summary conviction. Under the present law when a man leaves his job there is a penalty of £100 and a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment. I have gone a long way down from the present law to accept the position taken up by some hon. Members opposite, and I hope the Committee will give me credit for my generosity.

Mr. T. Smith: Can we have a promise from the Minister that he will reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage?

Mr. Bevin: Really, I have gone as far as I can.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 5, leave out "two years, and insert" twelve months."

In line 9, leave out "twelve, "and insert" six."—Mr. Bevin.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Maxton: I did not wish to vote against the Amendments of the Minister, since they reduced the penalties, but I am still profoundly dissatisfied. I propose, on the ground that the penalties are too high, even as amended now, to vote

Division No. 12.]
AYES.



Adams, Captain S. V. T. (Leeds W.)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Richards, R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Rickards, G. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Higgs, W. F.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Assheton, R.
Holdsworth, H.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Horabin, T, L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Salmon, Sir I.


Beechman, N. A.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hughes, Moelwyn
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Benson, G.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Johnston, Rt. Hn. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Selley, H. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Bossom, A. C.
King-Hall, Commander, VV. S. R.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Silkin, L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Lathan. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Lawson, J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Brooke, H.
Leach, W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Levy, T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Browne, Captain A. C. (Belfast W.)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Butcher, H. W.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Cape, T.
Mabane, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colman, N. C. D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Summers, G. S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Critchley, A.
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinker, J. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Magnay, T.
Tomlinson, G.


Daggar, G.
Maitland, Sir A.
Touche, G. C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Train, Sir J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mander, G. le M.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster).


Davison, Sir W. H.
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Elliston, Captain G. S.
Molson, A. H. E.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Weston, W. Garfield


Foot, D. M.
Mort, D. L.
Westwood, J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gledhill, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Granville, E. L.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Windsor, W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Power, Sir J. C.
Woolley, W. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Price, M. P.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wragg, H.


Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.



Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Rankin, Sir R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannah, I. C. 
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Major Dugdale and Mr. Whiteley


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)





NOES.



Gallacher, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Maxton arid Mr. McGovern.

CLAUSE 3.—(Terms of Service.)

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, at the end, to insert:
but such rules shall not operate to prevent the person serving with any Civil Defence force from forming or being members of a trade

against the Clause standing part of the Bill

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 1

union for the purpose of maintaining and improving their condition of service as regards pay, allowances, clothing expenses and other matters."

We think that these words ought to be inserted. The Minister has laid great


stress on the fact that this is not a military but a civil force, and we believe that a man should carry into such a force all the rights that he would have as a civilian citizen. One of the important rights which the working-class civilian citizen has is his right to join a trade union. I have been told that a man will not be prevented from remaining a member of his trade union, but that is not the purpose of the Amendment. A man who is called into the Civil Defence force may be a member of the woodworkers' union, the railwaymen's union, the miners-union or the carters' union, or even of the transport workers' union, but membership of those unions would be of little use to him in so far as conditions in any branch of the Civil Defence force are concerned. We want it to be possible for the men who are engaged in these services, and who have already, before the introduction of this Bill, had occasions on which it was necessary to act collectively about conditions, to belong to an appropriate organisation. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security will call to mind many representations that have been made to him on behalf of men in these various A.R.P. and other services for improvements in their conditions, and for consideration not only in the matter of wages, but in regard to uniforms, hours of labour, and so on. It is highly desirable that there should be the most complete opportunity for any men called away from their ordinary avocations to belong to a trade union interested in the conditions, not of the work they have left, but of the work on which they are now engaged. I gather that there is already such an organisation for the auxiliary firemen. I imagine that the Minister himself will appreciate the value of such an organisation for men in the general Civil Defence Services, to speak in a representative way on behalf of the men, to come to agreements on their behalf, and, in general, to perform the functions carried out by a trade union in ordinary industries.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I hope that the assurance I shall give the hon. Member will be satisfactory. As he knows, people who join the Civil Defence services and are members of trade unions may retain their

membership. He did not seem to be aware that equally there was no objection to their joining a trade union after joining the Civil Defence services. In fact, many have done so, as was stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the House on 26th March. He made it quite clear that a person called upon for Civil Defence could retain membership of his trade union, or could become a member of a trade union; and there are unions of which such men are members. The Police are on a different footing. In addition, the basic conditions of service are fixed by the Minister after discussion with a consultative committee of trade union representatives, set up by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council when he was Minister of Home Security. Those arrangements, I think I may fairly claim, are working admirably. In view of the existing practice, with which there is no intention to interfere, and of the assurance I have given, my hon. Friend will probably be able to" see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. McGovern: We want to be quite clear about this. We do not want to prolong the discussion when what we seek has been already obtained. But the point of the Amendment is not the point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. His point seemed to be that if a man were a member of a trade union before being called up for Civil Defence, he could retain his membership of that trade union, or he could be associated with those trade union representatives whom the Lord President of the Council had brought in to discuss the conditions applicable to his particular branch. The point we want to establish, very definitely, is that a group of, say, 1,000 men who are called up for Civil Defence can decide, on the job, to have a trade union among themselves, for deciding, or, at least, urging, that their conditions shall be improved, if necessary, and for protecting their working arrangements.
We are assured that "this is a Civil Defence force. The Minister made great play with the fact that these men were not being included in the military register, and, therefore, we assume that they are entitled to all the rights of civilian workers. It is no use attempting to throw dust in our eyes and to give the impression to the Committee that these


men are completely covered, if such is not the case. If we cannot get an assurance that the men can decide to join a trade union of their own, and can negotiate through their own representative and not an outside body created for the purpose of taking the power from their hands, if that is the aim, then this is only an attempt to emulate the German labour front, which gives to an official the right to negotiate on behalf of the men without the consent of the men. We want a very definite assurance, and if we get it we are prepared to withdraw the Amendment, that the men as a body can form their own trade union to decide their own conditions. That is what we ask.

Mr. Mabane: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking suspiciously where there is no need to do so at all. These rights are well known, and a firemen's trade union has been formed. They can form their own association just as anybody else, and I cannot see any objection to their doing so. But I should make quite plain that the assurance was not merely that the people were members of trade unions before being called up, but that, if they chose to join a trade union after joining up, they could do so, and I do not think that there is any reason for the hon. Gentleman to look with suspicion at that assurance.

Mr. Maxton: That does not satisfy.

Mr. Mabane: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give an assurance that people shall almost be encouraged to form a trade union, I cannot give that assurance, but I can say that there has never been an obstacle put in the way by the Ministry of Home Security of the formation of an association by members of the Civil Defence services, and I see no reason why there should be.

Mr. McGovern: That is not definite. We are not getting it clear. We are not asking that they should be encouraged to form a trade union, although with a Labour Minister and trades union leader we might even expect that, but we are asking that the men as a body, if they so desired, should be able to form a trades union; they should have complete liberty to do so.

Mr. Ammon: Perhaps I may be able to help both the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon.

Member. I can say that, speaking on behalf of the London County Council, the A.F.S. and the wardens have their own separate associations and make representations to the council in the way that any other trade union does.

Mr. Maxton.: I referred to that in my original speech, but the hon. Member is not being helpful, because this is a compulsory Measure, a Measure making this sort of work compulsory. We refer in our Amendment to the principal Act,.where rules are imposed making this a disciplined service. We know that for years it was a very hard struggle for all of us who were in the Labour party from 1922 onwards on behalf of the police, when the police were denied specifically the right to have a trade union. One Member got into this House under Labour party auspices—and he served the House for a number of years—on that issue, representing the policemen's union. That right was taken away, and we know, as does the hon. Member, that for the regular police trade unionism in the ordinary sense of the term is not permitted

Sir J. Lamb: They have the Police Council.

Mr. Maxton: I know that that works reasonably well, but it was not what the men wanted. They only got it because they had a fighting union. I recognise that there has always been in the minds of Governmental authorities the idea that "trade unionism is not a thing for you." I believe that trade unionism is a good thing for men working together on the same kind of job and in the same conditions. Collective bargaining has a place in the affairs of the nation. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that all essentials are not being denied, what is the objection to making it explicit in the Bill? I am not saying that the men must or must not form a trade union. I say that it should be legal for them to form trade unions and that they should not lose their rights as citizens because they are entering some branch of Civil Defence.

Mr. Bevin: Perhaps I can clear up the point. Before I became a Minister I established with the Home Office a Consultative Committee which embraces all the unions catering for men in Civil Defence. The reason was this: Many people transferred from other unions to Civil Defence, but they retained their tickets in their own


union, and this body arranged to represent them by acting for everybody. Men in Civil Defence, under this Bill, will be able to retain their membership or join a trade union.

Mr. Maxton: Put it in the Bill

Mr. Bevin: There is no need.

Mr. Maxton: What union does not want it?

Mr. McEntee: Mine does not.

Mr. Maxton: I do not believe it.

Sir Irving Albery: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to auxiliary firemen, whose case, I think, needs some consideration. I know that there is an association or a trade union which acts for firemen, but the conditions of service and pay of auxiliary firemen are quite different. Their interests need different representation. I believe that at the moment they have at least one association which wishes to put its views to the Minister, but that it is not recognised and is told that it must put them through the body which represents regular firemen. It was, perhaps, reasonable to insist upon that when auxiliary firemen did not form a very large body, but at the moment auxiliary firemen are four or five times as numerous as regular firemen. They believe that they are penalised in many ways, are not being given the same facilities for promotion, and that they have a great many grievances. I think the Amendment raises a point which can easily occur in the future. To some extent it has already occurred as regards the Auxiliary Fire Service, and the Committee ought to receive some assurance on the matter. I am not convinced, myself, that in time of war the position would be best met by creating what one might call auxiliary trade unions. Possibly it would be better met if there were an undertaking from the Minister that in all these Services a responsible official high up at headquarters would be appointed to watch the interests of the Auxiliary Civil Defence servants in much the same way as was done in the Territorial Forces in conjunction with the Army. At present the situation does not seem to be satisfactory, and, although I am not able to say whether the exact wording of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend would meet the case, I am

glad it has given me an opportunity of making these remarks.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think that if the Government's promise could be implemented, it would meet the case, as I see it. Let it be remembered that there has been a case in the courts on this very issue of the right of an auxiliary fireman to become a member of his own union.

Mr. Bevin: I should like to correct my hon. Friend. The case in Manchester did not concern a Civil Defence worker. It was a case concerning the right of a regular fireman to be a member of a union.

Mr. Davies: The reason I raise this matter is that whatever Parliament does, unless it lays down some specific regulation, there are influences in local authorities which are against trade unions as such. The point I want to make is that it is never sufficient to say that a man's interest in an occupation can be safeguarded by the union to which he belonged before taking up that occupation. Let us get this matter clear. Take the case of my own trade union. It is said that if men are conscripted for Civil Defence purposes, my union is to negotiate the conditions in that new employment. Frankly, if a member of my union becomes a coal miner, my union has finished with him, and the Miners' Federation looks after him. When I left the coal mines, the Miners' Federation finished with me. The point which concerns me is this. This service is a conscriptive and not a voluntary service. If the Minister says now, as I understand him to say, that these conscripted people, either alone or with the volunteers who work alongside them, can form a trade union, jointly or separately, then the case made by the two hon. Members has been won. I trust that is so.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to get an understanding on this question. Suppose that 1,000 men are called up into the Civil Defence services, and that of those 1,000 men, 100 belong to trade unions. They will be represented through their organisations before the Consultative Committee. However, it is possible that the 900 who are not in any organisation may decide to form a special Civil Defence organisation to look after


themselves. Will they be allowed representation on the body that meets the Consultative Committee? I have a recollection of a meeting of Civil Defence workers being called in order to discuss hours of work and conditions. The chief constable sent round word informing the wardens that they must not attend this meeting. Then the organisers, either of the Transport Workers' Union or the other union concerned, called a meeting. Of course, they attended, and several of them joined that particular union. The fact remains that when it was a question of an effort being made by the men themselves to get a meeting in order to discuss some form of organisation which would directly deal with working hours, general conditions, and wages in that particular area they were prohibited from doing so. If a large body of men are called up, they are immediately brought into common association in their work, and as a result they have common problems. There is a tendency for them to draw together. I should like to know, if these men are called up, and they decide to form an organisation of their own, whether that organisation will be allowed representation before the Consultative Committee, where they can bring forward any grievances there may be, or take steps to better their conditions.

Mr. McEntee: For 48 years I have been in my particular union, and I think I know something about it. We are perfectly competent to look after the interests of our workers, whether they are in Civil Defence or anywhere else.

Mr. Maxton: I was a teacher, and I can remember in the early days when instructors from the trade with which the hon. Member is associated came to work in my profession. They could not look after themselves, and I had to do it for them.

Mr. McEntee: I can assure the hon. Member that we are perfectly competent to look after our men, and that we are in fact doing it. We are looking after the interests of the hundreds of workers who are teaching woodcraft in London and elsewhere. I could give the names of dozens, and it is simply nonsense to say that we cannot look after them. The case of demolition squads was mentioned. What is a demolition squad? It is a squad comprising men who are in the

building trade. These men are practised in the building trade, and among them are to be found carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, plumbers and so forth. Just because a man happens to be engaged in pulling down a house, which has been partially destroyed by enemy action, it is nonsense to say that the trade union to which he belongs is not allowed to look after his interests. If a man joined another organisation he would then have to leave our union. That is definitely laid down in our rules. This Amendment, if it was carried out in the same spirit as the speeches which have been made, would definitely do harm to the trade union movement. It would create a number of organisations and would bring us back to the conditions we have been trying to destroy. The result would be that we should have a greater number of units.
Every little interest which desires to have representatives of its own particular branch of what is called Civil Defence would be setting them up. That is not the spirit of trade unionism. It is opposed to the spirit of trade unionism. We who are in industry are qualified to look after our own interests, and we have been doing it ever since Civil Defence was started. All our trade unions have been agreed in establishing that principle, which has been agreed to and established in the interest of all trade unions. I ask hon. Members not to interfere with us. We are perfectly competent to look after our own interests.

Mr. McGovern: Take the case that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has visualised of 1,000 workers in Civil Defence, 100 of whom are in different trade unions—miners, joiners, plumbers or clerks—and the 900 are not. What is he going to do about the 900? Are they to be allowed to form an independent trade union? What is to happen to them?

Mr. McEntee: Let them join their appropriate trade union. Has not the hon. Member heard of the General Workers' Union, and does he not know anything of its personnel? It is composed of all kinds of general workers. I believe teachers could join if they so desired, but I should not advise them to do so, as they have organisations representing them. Let us mind our own affairs. We are much obliged to you for


your interest, but we are quite competent to look after them.

Mr Maxton: The hon. Member may be doing all that he says. I know his record as a trade unionist, and I have never challenged it. But what he is doing now is, after half a century of trade unionism, to oppose an Amendment which says that the rights of trade unionism shall be preserved to these men. My hon. Friends and I are not saying that they must join the wood-workers or the fire brigade union. The men themselves will decide. I should regard it as an impertinence to give lessons in trade unionism to the hon. Member or to the right hon. Gentleman, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is not being a trade union leader when he refuses this Amendment. He is being a Minister of the Crown, and he is following a precedent set for him by the Conservative Ministers who have occupied a similar position. From the Labour point of view there can be no possible objection to stating explicitly that a man's right to be a trade unionist shall be observed. If the Minister refuses to do that, he has some reason for refusing, and it can only be that he does not want these men to express an organised opinion.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and, accordingly, he called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision, successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Noes had it, two members only who had challenged his decision having stood up.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, after "Treasury," to insert
and the Commons House of Parliament.
The object of the Amendment is to maintain House of Commons control in place of merely Governmental control.

Mr. Mabane: I gather that the purpose of this Amendment is to require that the approval of the House of Commons shall be given to any conditions of service— pay, allowances, clothing and so on— that may be established for Civil Defence Services, and also to require the approval

of the House for any variation in those conditions. I think the Committee will see that any such procedure would be delaying procedure. Hitherto, as the result of the work of the consultative committee, it has been found possible to establish conditions in the Civil Defence Services which are satisfactory to them, and from time to time variations have been made. We want such variations to be made as rapidly as may be, and we think there is no need to introduce the condition that specific approval by the House of Commons is necessary.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman does not answer my point. The Committee have just declined to insert an Amendment to give these men a statutory right to form a trade union. Now they are declining to make the question of their pay and conditions a matter for the House of Commons.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member. He says that the Committee have decided not to give these men the statutory right to form a trade union. The reason is that they do not need that statutory right. Already they have the Common Law right, and that is not affected by this Bill. If that is so, then the argument that they have not got trade union rights is nonsense.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Members always describes anybody who takes a view contrary to his own as talking nonsense, so I am not disturbed. [Interruption.] I may be the unfortunate exception, but in the majority of cases when the hon. Member has followed me in Debate he has pointed out that I have been either talking nonsense or I am dishonest. But I am not unduly disturbed, and time will show whether this Common Law right is recognised in actual practice in Civil Defence affairs. We can differ about that. The point I am now standing for is the right of representation on the Floor of this House. The Parliamentary Secretary says it would be delaying procedure. He knows perfectly well that is not true. If the Minister lays on the Table a statement that the conditions of the men in the Civil Defence services are to be improved in this or that respect he knows that the House will not interfere; but I want to be sure of the contrary position. If the Minister is proposing to make the


conditions of the men worse, then I want to make certain that he shall have to come before this House of Commons to get the approval of the House before he changes the conditions. I say that as the House has had something to do with setting up the conditions for these people it ought to have something to do with any alteration of them or with any question of maintaining them. It is a small thing for the Committee to insist that the House of Commons shall retain some say over the working conditions of these men.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said things for which I think he may be sorry some day. If I ought not to have said that he was talking nonsense I withdraw that expression, but if he will tell me what is the sense in his argument I shall be very pleased. I thought the whole motive force of the Labour movement in this country had been this—getting men to join their trade unions and, by collective bargaining, establish conditions of work, and I thought the hon. Member stood for that with all the rest of us here, whatever may be our differences on other matters. Now he says "No". He does not want to stand by collective bargaining. He wants it to be done by the House of Commons. It is a principle that none of the trade unions will accept. If the hon. Member's previous Amendment had been carried for a union to be formed, would the hon. Member have persisted with this Amendment?

Mr. Maxton: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: It would mean that the union contemplated by him under the Amendment would not have conformed to the general principles of the Labour movement. He would wish to come here to have the conditions of labour fought out on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Member says that he moves the Amendment only because the Committee has denied a statutory right to a trade union, I reply that he is going the wrong way about it. He assumes that because people have no statutory right to a trade union, they have no trade union, but that is not so. Under the Common Law they

Division No. 13.]
AYES.




NIL.





TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.

have their right to belong to a trade union.

Mr. McGovern: I am not surprised at the statement that the hon. Gentleman has made. He has often complained that certain people who have disagreed with him in this House are confused, but his confusion now is greater than anything I have seen in this House. He always appears to be the only person here who can see things clearly. He says that a man has a statutory right to belong to a trade union; we have never denied it. What has been denied in the rejection of the previous Amendment is the right of men to form a trade union on the job, in order to govern the conditions in which they work. The men having been denied that right and secured only the right of individuals to belong to their various trade unions, we have asked that, before the conditions laid down for the men on the job are completely applied, the House of Commons should be aware of them and should be able to criticise them and condemn them, as has been demanded on many occasions in regard to the conditions of the unemployed and others.
We are asking only that the House of Commons should still retain a measure of control over those conditions of labour, but, if that seems outrageous to certain Members, then I am afraid that I do not understand the principles of the Labour movement. Having failed to get the protection we desired for the workers on the job, so that persons who are concerned with the conditions of the workers might have some say with the workers in determining those conditions, we are asking that the House of Commons should be made aware of the position. In our opinion, the Minister is given too great a power to decide conditions without the persons concerned collectively bargaining on the matter and without the House of Commons being able to decide what is right or wrong. We ask that Members of Parliament should be given an opportunity of making that decision.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 0;Noes, 122.

NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Price, M. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Radford, E. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Ammon, C. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Assheton, R
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Barr. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Richards, R.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Hughes, Moelwyn
Rickards, G W.


Benson, G
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Blair, Sir R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Boyce, H. Leslie.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar).


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Silkin, L.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Browne, Captain A. C. (Belfast W.)
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Butcher, H. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cape, T.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
Mabane, W.
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summers, G. S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Daggar, G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McKinlay, A. S.
Train, Sir J.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mander, G. le M.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunn, E.
Mathers, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliston, Captain G. S.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, P.
Windsor, W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Parker, J.
Woolley, W. E.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Peake, O.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wragg, H.


Gledhill, G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Power, Sir J. C.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Adamson.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, after "Treasury," to insert:
and after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned.
Perhaps it will save the time of the Committee if I am allowed to deal with this Amendment in conjunction with the following Amendment which stands in my name, since both of them raise the same considerations. We want consultation by the Department concerned with the associations which represent the local authorities, that is to say, the County Councils Association and the Municipal Association. I would like to make it quite clear that as associations we do not wish in any way to deprive the Department of any of the authority which this House gives it, but to strengthen and help it if we can in the making of these Orders and in the taking of action under the two paragraphs of the Clause, namely, (i) and (j). We believe that consultation would be a great advantage in strengthening and giving assistance to the Department, and also in obtaining smooth working of the Orders

when they are made. We contend that it would be very much better to have provision for such consultation in the Bill, and that such consultation should take place before action is taken instead of after, which would cause the associations to have to make representations only when something was not satisfactory.
The first Amendment deals with the pay of those who are called up. The associations believe that there is some liability upon them to make payment, and we think that the conditions of service should be laid down after consultation with the two representative associations to see if they are in agreement as to what would be likely to be satisfactory. The second Amendment deals with the movement of individuals from one service to another after the first allocation has been made. Of course, the first allocation will be made by the Department; we do not want to interfere with that. But if men are to be moved subsequently from one authority to another, we believe that the authority from whose service the men are being moved should have an opportunity of


stating their needs, and, possibly, of objecting, before the men are taken away. We believe that they should have the right of consultation with the Department before action is taken, not after, in order to ensure smooth working and satisfactory conditions. That right has been given in other Bills.

Mr. Mabane: With your permission, Sir Dennis, I will deal with these two Amendments together, as my hon. Friend the Mover suggested. These Amendments, if accepted, would, I suggest, have a delaying effect at times when delay might be very serious. With regard to the second Amendment, not only would the effect be delaying, but it would not achieve what I gather the hon. Member intended. His concern is with the possibility of people being transferred from the service of one local authority to that of another, whereas the Amendment really relates to a transfer from one service, such as the rescue service, to another, for example, the first-aid parties. That is what the words of the Amendment would bring about. It is clear that, whereas there might be time for consultation in connection with the War Damage Act, the circumstances in which transfers might need to be made from one local authority to another in conditions of severe air-raiding would make speed necessary. If consultation had always to take place and the proceedings were held up, it would be undesirable. Nevertheless, I am prepared to give the assurance that, except when the need for speedy action prevents it, there will be consultation with the local authority concerned before any members of their services are moved to the services of another local authority. With regard to the first Amendment, consultation might be a delaying factor, but I can reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that the pay and allowances of those who may be called up under the Bill will be reimbursed in full to the local authority. I think that that financial point possibly caused him concern; and, after that assurance, he may be less interested in securing this automatic consultation. I hope that, with those assurances, he will withdraw the Amendment.

Major Milner: The Association of Municipal Corporations desire to support the Amendment, but if

the Parliamentary Secretary gives an undertaking that the local authority shall.be consulted in both these instances and that there is no question that full reimbursement will be made, my hon. Friend might withdraw the Amendment. The matters referred to in the Clause, namely, paragraph (i), are:
conditions of service as regards pay, allowances, clothing, expenses and other matters.
None of these is a matter in which delay is a very serious consequence. The hon. Gentleman's argument in that regard is not really very effective. He seemed to imply that it might be necessary because of "Blitzes" or something of that sort to give an immediate decision to pay allowances or expenses, but clearly the matter of delay would not be serious. In all these cases there could properly and usefully be consultation with local authorities, and if he could put that into the Bill, naturally the local authorities would prefer it, and I should have thought that it was possible. If it is not, perhaps he will give an undertaking that consultation will take place wherever possible. Delay in the urgency of dealing with the matter should be the only instance where consultation should not take place. In the event of such an assurance maybe my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: I do not see why delay should come into it at all. I should be loath to do anything which might cause delay, because urgency is most necessary in regard to settlement, but in view of the assurance that has been given by the hon. Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(d) he shall, if he be a person serving a local authority in any capacity specified in the first column of the Schedule to the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, immediately before he is called up for civil defence in pursuance of this Act, be treated for the purposes of the said Act of 1939 on such calling up as if he had ceased so to serve in such capacity as aforesaid in order to undertake service in any of the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown.
I have got so little out of the Committee stage of the Bill that I am emboldened to expect that I may get something out of this Amendment. I can see that there


may be difficulty in accepting the Amendment, but there are two points that I want to put before the Minister, and I hope that he will give them sympathetic consideration, and, if possible, give an undertaking. I am certain that he does not want to do a grave injustice which, I think, is possible unless something in the nature of this Amendment is given. It will be noted that while reference is made to Section 7 of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, both of which are really the retention of certain provisions, we have no mention of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939.
It means in effect that it is possible for a member of the staff of a local authority, who instead of being called up for military service is called up for Civil Defence, may not be in a position to have his pay made up. Many local authorities, when members of the staff join the Services, make up their pay. That may not be regarded as of the greatest importance, but what is of importance is that there is the possibility' that they will lose their superannuation rights for the period that they are in Civil Defence, whereas if they were in the Army they would not. I cannot believe that the Minister would want that sort of thing to continue. A member of a local authority paying a contribution into a superannuation fund is entitled to a certain pension at the end of a certain time. If you make a gap in the period, such as you may do unless the Amendment is accepted or an undertaking is given in regard to it, it will mean that at the expiration of the period of service a pensioner will not be entitled to the same pension as he would have been but for the interruption of his service. I would like to have some assurance upon that point from the Minister.

Mr. Mabane: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, does enable local authorities to make up the balance of civil pay of employés undertaking "war service" and does preserve their superannuation rights. Any employment in a service established under the Civil Defence Acts of 1937 and 1939 is "war service" for the purposes, of the Act of 1939 and many forms of service under this new Act will constitute "war service" for the purposes of the Act of 1939. Therefore to

that extent the Amendment is unnecessary, but even if the Bill as drafted does not cover all cases it appears that on technical and drafting grounds the insertion of this Amendment would not be the best way of achieving the object the hon. Gentleman has in mind. However, I have the authority of the Minister of Health to say that he will issue a circular to all local authorities recognising as "war service" any service under this Bill when it becomes an Act which is not already "war service," apart from such recognition. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied that he has at last got something.

Sir J. Lamb: I understand that by the Act of 1939 it is voluntary on the part of local authorities.

Mr. Mabane: It is purely permissive.

Mr. Messer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McGovern: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(d) no eviction order for evicting his wife and family from their home shall be granted while he is in the service of the Crown.
In moving this Amendment, I ask for consideration for men who have very limited incomes. In all past measures which have come before the House we have considered men who have been conscripted and have protected them from eviction. I ask that those who are conscripted for Civil Defence shall be protected from eviction during their period of service.

Mr. Mabane: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates that if this Amendment were accepted something would happen which would have the effect of putting people under this Bill, when it became an Act, in a far better position than the people who are conscripted for service in the Armed Forces. At the present time the absolute protection suggested in the Amendment is hot given to persons who are conscripted for the Armed Forces, and it seems to us that there is no reason why, with the allowances it is proposed to make to people compulsorily enrolled for Civil Defence, the law should discriminate in their favour and give them a protection not given to soldiers. The


Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 and 1940, protects tenants from unfair eviction by providing in effect that a landlord cannot enforce eviction without the consent of the court if there is any default in payment of rent. The court, in deciding whether a person liable to pay rent is unable to do so immediately by reason of circumstances attributable to the war may take into account the other liabilities of the tenant. Persons conscripted under this Bill for Civil Defence will have that protection, but I cannot believe that the hon. Member would wish to put them in a more favourable position than members of the Armed Forces.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Enforcement of requirements as to medical examination.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert, "seven."
Under the Clause as it stands, if a person fails to submit himself for medical examination, it is open to the courts to detain him in custody until the medical examination takes place. There is a proviso that no person shall be detained by virtue of any such order for more than 14 days. Therefore, the Clause conceives the possibility that a person may be detained in custody for14 days. I think that is too long a period. It ought to be possible for the Ministry to provide for the medical examination within seven days.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The Government are quite ready to accept this Amendment, which they think is a reasonable one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out paragraph (a).
This Amendment also seeks to remedy the harshness of the penalty provided in the Bill for a person who fails to submit himself for medical examination. According to the Bill, such a person may, on conviction on indictment, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. If the Amendment were accepted, such a person would be still

liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. I think that would be a sufficiently heavy penalty, particularly as the Minister already has power to detain the man in custody and compel him to submit himself for medical examination. To have, on top of that, the possibility of imprisonment for two years is far too harsh, and in my opinion unnecessary. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Messer: I wish to support the Amendment. I will not repeat the arguments which I used on a previous Amendment of this nature. In my view, it is too harsh, and not in consonance with English justice, to make this an indictable offence.

Mr. Radford: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. Only a fortnight ago, there was a case of a Fascist who refused to register under the Act, and when prosecuted, stated, "I am not going to be dictated to; I will stay in my home and look after my business. I will please myself." For such an individual no penalty is too harsh. I think that two years' imprisonment for such a man is leniency enough. I trust the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Messer: Why not make it a capital offence?

Mr. Radford: If the hon. Member moved such an Amendment, I should be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid that this is an Amendment which the Government cannot accept. The persons to whom this Clause relates are those men who refuse medical examination, and the object of committing the offence is to evade military service. The greater number of the men concerned are conscientious objectors, and are men who have failed to convince the tribunals. They are men who have been summoned for medical examination and have refused to attend. These men are prosecuted for the offence, and probably are punished by the imposition of a small fine. The next process is that they refuse to obey the order of the courts to be medically examined. Under these circumstances, after they have had three opportunities, it seems to me that it would be clearly inconsistent with the seriousness of the offence to reduce the penalty. This is not a question of conscientious objection, but it is a question


of refusing to obey a reasonable order of the court. The Government cannot give way in the matter.

Mr. McGovern: The Minister has stated his objections to any form of reduction merely because the decision has gone against a man who has appeared before a tribunal. If the man concerned accepted the work which was being allotted to him, and he is a conscientious objector, then he is not genuine. If he is a genuine conscientious objector, he is bound to refuse if he is to be consistent with his objection. All that the Minister is saying is that the man has failed to convince the members of the tribunal, and not that he is not a genuine objector. In Glasgow we have No. I tribunal, and 50 per cent, less people get through, compared with any other tribunals in the country. Many of the men who have passed through that tribunal and have been sent for a term of imprisonment have since been recognised as genuine conscientious objectors. The Minister need not suspect, as I was suspected in 1915 when I appeared before a tribunal and was turned down, that I was not a genuine conscientious objector. I knew that I had conscientious objections to taking part in a war, and I have held those objections from 1910 to the present day. Therefore the tribunal was wrong in its decision. The decisions of many of the tribunals which decided the cases of other Members of the House of Commons, who are now Ministers, have been wrong because the very position of these Members today has proved that they were "fake" in the extreme when they pleaded their objection. There are bound to be a number of genuine people turned down by the tribunals.
I recognise that it is not very often that conscience is allowed scope in this House. Yesterday conscience was allowed its full scope. It seems to me that the only time when conscience scruples can be found among the Socialists here is in connection with Sunday cinemas and theatres. Then organised religion can drive them into the Lobby. The Minister is not only laying down procedure and penalty but is carrying out persecution against these men. I could, for example, go to the tribunal and, if they said to me, "You have to take part in Civil Defence work," I might find that perfectly consistent with

my own humane outlook though I was against war, but there are many religious objectors who take the extreme view that it is completely inconsistent to be part of this machine in any way, and they believe that Civil Defence is part of the machine. An hon. Member thinks that this proposal did not go far enough and said that if an Amendment was moved that they should be hanged, he would support it.
In my estimation, that is exactly the type of mind that we are declaiming against when we talk about Nazis and Fascists and concentration camps. I find, in spite of all the statements that have been made to the contrary, that a large number of people in this House and the country are going along that self-same road. I have seen since the war began a vast transformation in the minds of Members of the House. I see many of them to-day who could qualify, not for the British free institution of the House of Commons but for the German Reichstag. I am against this Measure and its penalties and for the Minister of Labour, who has been raised to that status because of his past services and his protests against war, to take this attitude towards conscientious objectors is the most vile thing that I have seen in the whole of my life in the Labour movement. Principle seems to be of no consequence and democracy is being destroyed by those very democrats who use the phrase but in their hearts do not believe in democracy but in dictatorship.

Amendment negatived

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Postponement certificates)

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out from "absent" to "the", in line 30, and to insert:
then, with the consent in writing of the person to whose application the appeal relates.
This Clause gives the umpire power to determine an appeal in the absence of one or both of the assessors if, in his view, that absence is due to circumstances arising out of the war. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has an Amendment down and the Government propose to accept the sense of it. As he has put it, the umpire would be allowed to sit


without the assessors provided the appellant is agreeable to this course. This Amendment strikes out the words:
and it appears to the umpire that the absence is due to circumstances arising out of the war.
The Clause will now read:
Where, on any appeal to the umpire under Sub-section (3) of Section six of the principal Act (which relates to postponement certificates) one or both of the assessors appointed to sit with the umpire is or are absent, then, with the consent in writing of the person to whose application the appeal relates, the umpire may, notwithstanding, etc.
It is quite clear that if the person concerned is willing that the case should be heard in the absence of the assessors, there is no need for the words previously inserted with regard to circumstances arising out of the war, and I think it meets the general convenience that the Amendment should be accepted in this form.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I would like to express my appreciation of the acceptance of my Amendment in principle and to say that I agree with the extension proposed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, at the end, to add:
(4) The proviso to subsection (3) of section six of the principal Act shall cease to have effect.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure for persons who claim postponement on the ground of hardship the same rights of appeal as the conscientious objector has. A person claiming postponement on the grounds of hardship goes to a hardship tribunal, but if he is not satisfied with the decision he has no right of appeal. He can only appeal if the decision is not unanimous or if he gets the leave of the tribunal. The proviso in the principal Act which I seek to omit limits the right of appeal in the way I have described. I want to put the ordinary person who claims postponement from military service on the ground of hardship in the same position as the conscientious objector who, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the tribunal, can go to an appellate tribunal as a matter of course without anybody's leave.

Mr. McEntee: Most of us have had cases of people who feel that an appeal against a tribunal's decision is desirable. One

case came to my notice in the last few weeks of a father dying and leaving a widow who knew nothing about his business. There were five sons and four were called up to join the Army. When the last one was called up I made an appeal that he should be allowed to remain. He had had two extensions, and I merely asked that he should have a further extension and should be allowed to remain out of the Army for 12 months. The Minister was unable to accede to that request. The man went into the Army and left the business in a bad position because he was unable to find a competent manager for five butchers' shops. One would have thought that in present circumstances the need for carrying on the business would have appealed to the Minister and that postponement for the full time would have been granted. I felt rather bitter about that case. It seemed to me that it was a case where there ought to have been a right of appeal. I hope the Minister will give to the man who is willing to go into the Army but finds himself in difficult circumstances, rights not less than those given to conscientious objectors.

Mr. McGovern: I also support the Amendment. I have come across a large number of cases of the kind which have been mentioned, and I feel that it is a great pity that the Military Service Act did not give an applicant a right of appeal to an appeal tribunal. I remember one case which went to a hardship tribunal. It was the case of a commercial traveller who lived alone with his invalid mother. He was prepared to serve, but asked for six months' delay in order to be able to make some provision for the care of his mother. The chairman said "Just put your mother in a home and sell up your own home." He was given one week in which to do that. If that man had had an opportunity to appeal I think he would have got more consideration, because I do not deny that many cases have received consideration. If he had had the right to go to an appeal tribunal he could have summoned further impressive evidence which might have given him a period of relief.
I feel that men who are to be called up for Civil Defence work should be given the opportunity of going to an appeal tribunal. Under legislation at present in force the Minister retains the power of


appealing to the umpire, and he has exercised that power in two or three cases to which I have myself drawn his attention. In the case of one family the father and mother were dead and the breadwinner was a young man of 20. He was keeping the home going for the three other children, aged 7, 9 and 11, respectively. The tribunal refused to give him any extension, but the umpire, in contrast with that decision of the local hardship tribunal, has allowed three periods of extension, and the man still remains out of the Army.
I do not think these matters should remain entirely within the jurisdiction of the Minister, because it may be that neither he nor the Parliamentary Secretary can give personal attention to them. If the applicant cannot apply political pressure through a Member of Parliament his case will probably come before an official, who will just send word back that there is no right of appeal to the umpire, and so injustice will be done. Some provision should be made for these men in the Civil Defence Services. I do not differentiate between a conscientious objector and a man who feels that it is his duty to serve his country. If he believes that to be his duty I honour the man, and will do nothing to thwart his desires, though my own view is diametrically opposed to his. Therefore, I am prepared to support even the cases of men who are prepared to do their duty according to their lights, and ask the Minister that some consideration should be shown to them.

Mr. Assheton: I am sure the Committee will appreciate that there is nothing in the administrative work of the Ministry of Labour which causes more anxiety than these questions of hardship in individual cases. I think, too, the Committee will appreciate that the administration of these matters has been extraordinarily fair and has met with little criticism. In something like two-thirds of the cases which have arisen tribunals have granted deferment on account of hardship. If the Amendment were to be accepted it would give an unrestricted right of appeal in all these cases. At the present time the right of appeal exists if the hardship committee is not unanimous or gives leave to appeal. In addition to that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister has the right to appeal, which

he exercises when he thinks necessary in order to secure that justice is done. Therefore, there is plenty of opportunity of appeal to the umpire in any case of doubt.
I do not think there is any analogy between these cases and those of conscientious objection. Local tribunals for conscientious objectors cover a considerable area and have nothing like the local knowledge enjoyed by the 400 hardship tribunals. We can fairly trust the hardship committees who have that local knowledge to give the right decisions in these cases. If a hardship committee is not unanimous, there is leave to appeal. In the circumstances I think the Committee will agree that it is reasonable to allow matters to stay where they are and to resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Reinstatement in civil employment.)

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 10, line 16, to leave out from the first "to," to "there," inline 17, and to insert "that service."
This Amendment and the two following which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend are of a drafting character and seek to put right difficulties which arose on the Clause as drafted. I do not think the Committee will find any difficulty in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, to leave out "seven" and to insert "fourteen."
Under the Clause as it stands, if a person has been in employment within seven days of being called up for service, the employer is under an obligation to reinstate him at the end of the war. It is suggested that an employer may give a man a certain amount of time off before the man is called up. He may give him a week, and in that way terminate the employment so that the man is not actually in employment on being called up, and the employer thus ceases to have the obligation to reinstate. I want to extend the time from seven days to fourteen days. If a man is called up on a


Wednesday and finishes his employment on the Saturday week before, the employer ceases to be under an obligation to reinstate. I feel that the period of seven days should be extended to fourteen days, to be on the safe side, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the Amendment is reasonable.

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 10, line 23, at the end, insert:
In his employment at the termination of his service as a person called up or called out.
In line 28, at the end, insert:
and in Subsection (2) of the said Section for the words ' that service ' there shall be substituted the words 'the service of the employés as persons called up or called out.'
In line 28, at the end, insert:
(3) Where, by virtue of any provision of the Naval and Maritime Forces (Temporary Release from Service) Act, 1940, or the Armed Forces (Conditions of Service) Act, 1939, a person called up or called out has, at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) before such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, been released from service in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines, or from Army service or Air Force service, or from obligations which he is under by reason of the embodiment of any part of the Territorial Army or the Auxiliary Air Force, his service in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, Air Force, Territorial Army or Auxiliary Air Force shall not, for the purposes of the said Section fourteen, be deemed to have terminated by reason only of his release as aforesaid.
An Order in Council under this Sub-section may appoint different dates in relation to different Forces or parts of Forces.—[Mr. Assheton.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Interpretation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silkin: The question has been raised as to the definition of a Civil Defence force, and I have been asked by the Association of Municipal Corporations to put the following points: The Clause declares that "Civil Defence force" means any civil organization
established for forestalling or mitigating attacks by the enemy

I should like to know, first of all, whether fire prevention services are to come within the definition for the purposes of the Bill. The other point is whether rest centres and places of that sort are to come within the definition of "Civil Defence force." It is doubtful whether, on the words as they stand, they could come within that definition as an organisation
established for forestalling or mitigating attacks by the enemy.
I hope that it may be possible for the Minister to remove doubt and to declare that if it is desired he can include the fire prevention services and rest centres as performing work of a Civil Defence force.

Mr. Mabane: The definition is very wide, and, I think, wide enough to cover the categories mentioned by the hon. Member if necessary. It is not necessary, however, because fire prevention duties are part-time, whereas the duties of those called up under this Bill will be whole-time. Therefore, while the definition may be wide, these people to whom the hon. Gentleman made reference will not come within its ambit.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the Minister deal with the question of rest centres? There are many people engaged in rest centres, doing full-time work and, if necessary, going about from one centre to another.

Mr. Mabane: I think they are women.

Mr. Harvey: No. In London there is quite a number of men.

Mr. Mabane: If they are engaged in forestalling or mitigating attacks by the enemy, they will be included. If not, they will not be included.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. —(Selection for civil defence)

Any person of military age who is in charge of a one-man business may select to join for Civil Defence—[Mr G. Macdonald].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I desire, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey),


to move this new Clause, because I feel that a man with a one-man business deserves consideration. I am sure that every hon. Member in this House is well acquainted with scores of cases of men having suffered heavily because they own a one-man business. If a man is allowed to go into Civil Defence he will, to a great extent, be able to supervise, whereas if he is put into the Armed Forces the likelihood is that he will be far away from his business, he will not be able to supervise in any shape or form, and his business will be lost. Furthermore, I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a differentiation in treatment between the owner of a one-man business and a departmental manager. There is a strong feeling that the latter is put in a preferential position in comparison with the former, and I should like to ask the Minister, in replying, to consider what can be done to give better treatment. I would ask for a fairer treatment for the man who owns his own business than is being given to-day. I understand that my hon. Friend had in mind merely the possibility of enabling a man with his own business to supervise it better while rendering good service to the nation. He desires that such a man shall enter the service, but that he shall not be too heavily penalised.

Mr. David Adams: I should like to support the new Clause. Because of many cases that have been brought to my notice, and in response to urgent appeals from people in responsible positions who were acquainted with very hard cases, I appealed to the Secretary of State for War as to whether he could not, in these particular cases, permit men who owned a one-man business to leave their posts in the South of England and be transferred to work contiguous to their businesses in the North. It was with some diffidence that I made such a request, but it concerned a case of such extreme hardship that I did so. The Minister was very sympathetic, but, as one might have anticipated, he found the services of this particular man so urgently necessary where he was that he could not see his way to making this exception. Here then is a principle which would enable the military authorities to act generously in the cases of men who, with their families and dependants, are suffering so severely

by permitting them to transfer to Civil Defence. It is not as though this proposal asks that the persons concerned should be put in a favoured position, because many of them would be in a much worse position as far as personal safety is concerned. We are just asking that cases of distinct hardship should be dealt with in this sympathetic way, according as the Minister concerned may think the justice of the case dictates.

Mr. Mabane: It seems that the purpose of this new Clause is to endeavour to provide some means whereby the proprietor of a one-man business can look after that business, and it presumes no doubt that that would be possible because people in the Civil Defence services would be near their homes. But that is not so at all, because under this Bill people who are taken for Civil Defence would be moved to those parts of the country where they were most needed, and it would be unlikely that they would be engaged near their homes in more than a limited number of cases. So far as possible, and so far as the interests of the services and the qualifications of the men themselves permit, this preference will be taken fully into account in allocating men to the different services and localities. But it is clear that there might be men with one-man businesses in rural areas where there would be no full-time Civil Defence service established, so that there could be no question of posting them there. Where it can be done, however, I will give an assurance that full consideration will be given to these cases.

Mr. G. Macdonald: In view of the explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to certain persons sentenced by the courts)

(1) If any person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three months or more imposed on him for an offence by a court, in accordance with the terms of Section four or Section five of this Act, claims that the offence was committed by reason of his conscientiously objecting to performing a duty imposed by this Act, he may apply in the. prescribed manner to have his case considered by the appellate tribunal and that tribunal shall, if it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such conscientious objection as aforesaid have power to recommend to the Minister that he be discharged


from the service of Civil Defence as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him.

(2)Where the appellate tribunal recommend under this Section that a person be discharged from the service of Civil Defence the tribunal shall have power to make any order with respect to his registration as a conscientious objector which they would have had power to make on an appeal under Section Five of the principal Act, and any such order shall have effect immediately upon his discharge.

(3)Upon receiving from the appellate tribunal a recommendation made under this Section that a person be discharged from the ser vice of Civil Defence it shall be the duty of the Minister to arrange for his discharge accordingly—[Mr. Harvey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause provides for this Measure something which already exists in the National Service Act. It will be remembered that when the National Service Bill was under discussion very earnest and eloquent appeals were made to the Government to include a provision to prevent the kind of thing which occurred in the last war, when conscientious objectors were repeatedly sentenced to considerable terms of imprisonment, came out from prison, went back to their regiments, and then were sentenced again, technically for different offences, but in reality for the same offence of refusing to undertake military service. That was commonly known as the "cat-and-mouse" procedure. It excited very real indignation among many people who did not agree with the conscientious objectors' point of view. It is only fair that the provision which was made in the National Service Act for those who had a conscientious objection to military service should apply equally to prevent repeated imprisonment for what is virtually the same offence in the case of conscientious objectors under this Bill. I am not suggesting that there should be no penalty for refusing to obey the law. I do not think that the men concerned would expect that. The Bill provides severe penalties, either one or two years imprisonment, as a maximum, in addition to a fine. We surely cannot contemplate, although we may disagree with a man's views, and think him very misguided that when, after a long sentence of that kind, he persists in refusing to undertake the service laid upon him,

he should again be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for the same offence.
I believe that the Minister of Labour has been unable to understand that a man can have a conscientious objection to civilian service. It is easy to understand the conscientious objection to the taking of life and to military service. But conscience is an inexplicable thing. It is, in fact, true that people have a conscientious objection to many acts in no way connected with military service. The State has recognised that. We know that there is a conscientious objection on the part of some people to compulsory vaccination. Most of us consider it in the interests of the community that children should be vaccinated. Parliament passed a law to provide that they should. But it made provision in that law for a conscientious objection, of which Parliament itself did not approve, recognising it as sincere, and, therefore, to be respected. In this case there is no suggestion that conscientious objection should go without a penalty—it will incur a very severe penalty—but there is a strong reason why the State should see that, after the penalty has bees imposed, it is not again inflicted for what is, in effect, the same offence. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago spoke of the evasion of the Act by conscientious objectors who did not register. I am aware that no one would wish to justify evasion.

Mr. Radford: My hon. Friend refers to conscientious objectors, but I gave the Committee the case of a Fascist, and therefore I think it would be wrong to convey the impression that it applies solely to conscientious objectors.

Mr. Harvey: I agree that it covers others besides conscientious objectors, and I am not for a moment justifying evasion of any of the duties. Some of these men are not trying to evade the Act but have, in some cases, notified the Ministry of Labour that because of their conscientious objection they are unable to register. They will not take advantage of any opportunity that the law has provided, because they feel that the whole thing is something that is wrong. I am not saying that that is the right position to take, but it is a sincere position, and it is one which, surely, we must respect,


even if we think that it must be misguided, and I beg that the Committee should provide that in such cases where there is a claim by a conscientious objector after a period of imprisonment has been served there should be the opportunity for that claim to be considered by a tribunal, which should have the same power as under the National Service Act to award the different degrees of exemption that are provided in that Act or to make the suitable recommendation to the Minister.
The terms of this new Clause are almost identical, with certain verbal alterations which are necessary, with the terms of the existing Act. I am prepared to see any modification of those terms that the Minister may consider necessary, if he, on behalf of the Government, can accept the principle that is already embodied in the National Service Act. It is that for which I am asking, and it would meet my hon. Friend's desire in proposing this Clause.

Mr. Messer: I think that, in view of what we have heard from the Minister, we are in the situation which arises from his refusal to give anybody engaged on civil work the right of appearing before a tribunal to support their case of conscientious objection. You are discriminating against the Civil Defence worker. You say to the man called up for military service, "If the tribunal have not, in your view, correctly arrived at a conclusion in face of the evidence submitted, and you are dissatisfied, you can go to the appeal tribunal. Then, if you are unable to prove your case, you must go into the Army, and if you do not, you are subject to the penalties laid down by law." The Civil Defence worker, although it might be absurd and ridiculous that he should have any conscientious objection to Civil Defence—and there are many cranks in the world —may conceive a type of Civil Defence work which outrages his conscience, and you are not providing him with any tribunal, and so, willy-nilly, he will have to go to the court. The court may be seized of the sincerity with which he holds his view, but they have no alternative. They are not concerned with the reasons; their concern is with facts, and if the law has been broken, the consequent penalty must be imposed. After

the penalty has been imposed and punishment has been suffered, they may still refuse and again may go to the court. How long is that to continue? If a court says, "This has arisen as a result of conscientious principles and has been referred to us by a tribunal constituted differently from our court," let the tribunal say, "In such circumstances we are wasting man-power as well as doing an injustice by not giving this man an opportunity of some alternative form of service." I suggest that the best interests of the nation would be served by providing some opportunity for men having a conscientious objection to a particular type of Civil Defence work, to state a case in exactly the same way as is done by a man who might be called up for military service.

Mr. Radford: I hope the Government will not accept this new Clause. I can understand a man having a conscientious objection to taking life or engaging in combat, but I cannot understand—and it is a misuse of the word" conscience —anyone having a conscientious objection to taking part in Civil Defence work, for instance, fire watching and the like. That is not a matter of conscience; it is a refusal to take a fair share of public service which is the bounden duty of everyone of us in view of what we are receiving from the public services of our country.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is discussing what we discussed a long time ago, which is not the object of this new Clause.

Mr. Radford: I was only putting forward what I felt was a justification for the Government in not accepting it. Refusal of any person to obey the terms of this Bill is something which I could not regard as being a matter of conscience at all. Some of us might prefer to go home and have a comfortable sleep instead of fire watching, but conscientious objection is merely evasion of the reasonable duty we all owe to our fellow countrymen.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member again. That is not the object of this new Clause.

Mr. Radford: I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, and I will not pursue the matter further.

Mr. David Adams: I quite agree that the conscientious objector is a person of somewhat unusual intellectual outlook. I do not sympathise with his view, but, nevertheless, he exists, and as the State recognises that he exists there is little advantage to the community by his repeated punishment. The conscientious objector might argue that Civil Defence is a form of militarism and an aid to the military machine and that without it the military situation in this country would unquestionably be worsened. Whether we agree or disagree, he is prepared to suffer punishment, incidental to disagreement with the community, under these heads. Surely, it is reasonable to ask that if there be such persons we should endeavour not to commit repeated acts of cruelty or harshness against them. For that reason, once a man has suffered the extreme punishment, which may be the severe sentence of two years' imprisonment, there should be available to him a tribune to which he can appeal.

Mr. Radford: I believe that two years is the maximum period for which a man can be imprisoned. Suppose that the war went on for five years, would it be right for a man to escape five years' duty merely by serving two years' imprisonment?

Mr. Messer: Yes, if he has a conscientious objection.

Mr. Adams: No doubt the community would see that such a man was not an idle member of it, even if he was not serving his time in prison or in the Civil Defence services. One may hope that he would be a useful member of the community. Let us be broadminded and give these persons, with whom we may utterly disagree, what is, after all, in the judgment of broadminded people, elementary justice.

Mr. McGovern: I support the appeal which has been made that there should be a tribunal to decide, after a period of imprisonment, when Shylock has had his pound of flesh, whether the man's genuine conscientious objection has led to his failing to respond to the call. Probably, I would go further than some hon. Members in relation to this matter. The hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) gave the case of a Fascist who stated that he refused to do anything. Let me remind the hon. Member of the case of a Fascist

in London who was granted exemption by the tribunal. He said he was in favour of the German system, and, therefore, he had conscientious objections to being asked to take part in military warfare for the overthrow of the system in which he believed. He thought that system should come to this country. He was exempted by the tribunal because he had a conscientious objection. Suppose there were Fascists as well as Socialists and Pacifists who, under this Bill, were being called to the Colours, and their conscientious objection was such that they refused to serve, I would not be prepared to say that they should be kept in prison for one, two or five years, during the period of the war, if, unfortunately, it lasted that time.
The hon. Member for Rusholme appals me when he suggests that the penalties in this Bill are too moderate. That seems to be his grievance about the Bill. He would not give the individual any right of appeal after he had served three, six, or 12 months', or even two years' imprisonment. He says that the war may last for five years, and therefore, his argument is that the individual should be kept in prison for five years. From time to time I hear appeals made in the House which cause me to wonder whether or not they are genuine. I hear appeals made from the Labour Benches about the imprisonment in India of people who believe in a system of non co-operation, and who refuse to co-operate with the British Imperialist State. I sometimes doubt whether there is any sincerity behind those appeals. Indeed, I honestly confess that I doubt whether a large proportion of the Labour party—I do not say all its Members—are really sincere about anything. I begin to doubt all the principles that were inculcated into me when I was a boy by the average trade union leader. I am beginning to wonder whether they believe in any of them, or whether they have not got far away from realities and principles and contact with the ordinary men and women in the streets by coming into this House. I believe that the greatest condemnation of Parliamentarianism is the fact that as men gravitate towards the centre, and move away from the sources of poverty and distress in their area, and become more and more part of the machine—

Mr. Tinker: Will not the hon. Member credit other Members with a little


sincerity? He has been speaking to-day as if there were no decent men here except himself. Am I to gather that that is what he is saying?

Mr. McGovern: I will judge Members according to their actions. I judge every one according to his actions. If the Minister of Labour says to the youth of this nation that it is glorious to oppose war and if hon. Members of the Labour party like the Secretary of State for Scotland conducted propaganda throughout the years, inculcating that idea into youth, then I am entitled to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Labour—

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member is attacking the Labour party as a whole.

The Chairman: I think this is a matter which hon. Members had better deal with elsewhere, or on some other occasion. I think that the hon. Member is getting very near transgressing the rules in what he is saying.

Mr. McGovern: I know that the only time that their conscience touches them is when they are told these truths. Let me say to the Labour Members, I am sent to express my views and I am entitled to do so because we have not arrived at the stage when this is a British Reichstag House of Commons.

Mr. Tinker: One is entitled to challenge that too.

Mr. McGovern: I do not disagree—just as Labour Members are entitled to challenge the Conservatives. My claim is that the Labour party and the Minister have accepted Tory philosophy.

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue this subject any more.

Mr. McGovern: I will only say in passing that Labour Members must realise they are now in office, and that they are part of the Government.

Mr. Tinker: Does that make us wrong because we support the Government in this war?

The Chairman: I am afraid I must point out that this discussion is out of order.

Mr. Tinker: Unless the hon. Member gets away from this subject he is going to be challenged.

The Chairman: This is obviously a matter to be settled elsewhere or at another time.

Mr. McGovern: I will conclude by saying that by maintaining that a man shall not appeal to a tribunal after a term of imprisonment they are being inconsistent with their past. If I challenge Members on the Floor of the House of Commons and in the country with being inconsistent, I am entitled to do so. I sympathise with any hon. Member who has been caught up in the power machine. I am not in the power machine. I am an independent Member who can express his views. I support the Amendment, and I think the Minister would be wise to accept it, because again, instead of simply penalising people for the refusal to serve by keeping them for a very lengthy time in prison, you are carrying on a system of persecution which I do not think is worthy of the real ideals of British justice.

Mr. Assheton: This Clause is clearly on the analogy of Clause 13 of the original National Service (Armed Forces) Act. There are two main objections to it. The Movers speak of the discharge of the man in question from Civil Defence. Of course, it is apparent that he will not find himself in that situation if he is a man who has not yet been medically examined or who has disobeyed the orders of the tribunal; in such a case he would not be in Civil Defence, and therefore could not be discharged from it. On the face of it, it does not make sense. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said, that he would accept any words that we chose to suggest, and, if we wanted to accept the underlying idea, we would put forward certain other words. The Committee has already accepted on several occasions the proposition that it does not recognise conscientious objection to Civil Defence as such, and if we were to accept this Clause, we should be going back on all the work that we have done. Hon. Members may still maintain their own opinions as to whether there should be conscientious objection to Civil Defence, but the view of the Government that such objections should not be upheld has been maintained on all sides of the House. I do not therefore think I can do any good by pursuing the matter further. I ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think it is quite correct to say that to accept the principle of the Clause would be to accept the principle of conscientious objection to Civil Defence. I have repeatedly said that I entirely accept the view that conscientious objection to Civil Defence would be inadmissible If I thought the acceptance of the Clause involved going back on that principle, I should not be supporting it. I support it because as a matter of public policy it is right that this should be done. It is accepted that a man ought to perform his duties under this Bill, and that, if he does not, that is a matter for which the State is entitled to punish him. All that is accepted by the Clause. As I read it, it does not claim that a man who claims conscientious objection ought to be entitled to exemption. If it did claim that the principle would be given away, as my hon. Friend says. The new Clause says, however, that however conscientious and sincere a man's objection may be he shall not be exempt but shall be punished by the State for refusal to obey its orders. It adds, however, that as a matter of public policy sentences should not be inflicted for what is in fact the same offence. That is the principle. Hon. Members sometimes forget that the words "conscientious objector" did not come into the political life of the country over the question of military service. They came in for the first time with the Education Act of 1902, when people said they could not conscientiously give their money in order that the State could do things which were opposed to their conscience. They were the original conscientious objectors. People were also allowed to disobey the law of compulsory vaccination if they satisfied some authority that they were conscientiously opposed to it. Under the Education Act we saw the farce of a person being dragged time after time before the courts and fined and of having his

Division No. 14.]
AYES.



Adams, D. (Consett)
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kirkwood, D. 
Windsor, W.
Mr. Harvey and Mr. Silverman. 


McGovern, J






NOES.


Adamson W. M. (Cannock)
Butcher, H. W.
Hall, W. G. (Coins Valley)


Albery, Sir Irving
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hannah, I. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Daggar, G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Assheton, R.
Dunn, E.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.


Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)


Blair, Sir R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Brooklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Brooke, H.
Granville, E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.

goods sold, although the offence was one and the same.

In the present case, if a man is called upon to perform duties under the Bill and he refuses, he is punished and serves his sentence. In a purely formal, technical sense if he refuses another order, he commits another offence and he can be imprisoned again. Is it, however, good policy to do that? Does the State want to do it, because in fact the second, third and fourth offences are all really the same offence, and a man ought not to have repeated punishments for the same crime. That is the principle of the Clause; it is that that conscientious objection to Civil Defence ought to be accepted. That is a different thing. The number of men involved must be very small. What sort of advantage to the State or to the national effort or to the prosecution of the war or to democracy or to anything else that we value is to be gained by repeatedly letting these men out of prison and dragging them in again and again because they go on doing what they said in the beginning they felt bound to do? Is it really wise and does my hon. Friend really think that it is essential to his Bill? Will he not between now and the final stages reconsider it? He shakes his head, but I hope he will think better of it. It is a hopeless spectacle to contemplate; it does nobody any good and it is an offence against what has always been regarded as public policy in the criminal law. Nothing would be gained by persistence in this matter. My hon. Friend has a vast majority in the House and can carry almost anything if he is obstinate enough, but if you have a giant's strength is it always wise to use it?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 5; Noes, 67.

Leach, W.
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Loftus, P. C.
Paling W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mabane, W.
Price, M. P.
Summers, G. S.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Radford, E. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tomlinson, G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rankin, Sir R.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster).


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McKinlay, A. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Magnay, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Rickards, G. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mander, G. le M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smiles, Lt. -Col. Sir W. D.



Morgan, Dr H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Dagdale and Mr. Boulton

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the under mentioned areas, namely:
(1) the Urban District of Welwyn Garden City,

(2) the Urban District of Rugeley,
copies of which were presented to this House on 1st April, be approved—[Mr. Mabane.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,

"That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]